UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA 

COLLEGE   OF   AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL   EXPERIMENT   STATION 

BERKELEY,    CALIFORNIA 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE 
APPLE   INDUSTRY 


EMIL   RAUCHENSTEIN 


Results  of  investigations  conducted  under  cooperative  agreement  between  the 
California  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  and  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural 
Economics,    United    States   Department   of   Agriculture. 


BULLETIN  445 

December,  1927 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PRINTING  OFFICE 

BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 

1927 


& 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Summary  and  conclusions 3 

Object  of  this  study 6 

Part  I — The  situation  in  the  United  States 7 

Importance  of  the  apple  industry  in  the  United  States 7 

Apple-producing  areas  in  the  United  States 9 

Trends  in  apple  production 11 

Trend  in  the  number  of  apple  trees  in  the  United  States 16 

Trend  in  the  number  of  apple  trees  in  important  apple-producing  counties 20 

Shipments  of  fresh  apples  by  years 23 

Shipments  of  fresh  apples  during  the  summer  months 24 

Seasonal  movement  of  fresh  apples  compared  with  other  fresh  fruits 27 

Apple  storage 30 

The  distribution  and  extent  of  the  apple-drying  industry  in  the  United  States....  32 
The  distribution  and  extent  of  the  apple-canning  industry  in  the  United  States...  33 

Important  apple  markets  in  the  United  States 34 

Important  foreign  markets  for  fresh  apples 36 

Imports  and  exports  of  fresh,  dried,  and  canned  apples  in  the  United  States 38 

Apple  prices  and  their  relation  to  production 39 

Correlation  of  purchasing  power  and  total  United  States  production 42 

Seasonal  variations  in  the  purchasing  power  of  apples 43 

Part  II — The  situation  in  California 45 

Importance  of  the  apple  industry  in  California 45 

Areas  devoted  to  apple  production  in  California 47 

Trend  in  acreage  by  counties 48 

Carlot  shipments  of  apples  in  California  by  months 51 

Trend  in  shipments  by  counties 53 

Apple  survey 54 

Apple  production  in  the  Watsonville  district  by  varieties  and  grades 55 

Primary  destination  of  apples  from  the  Watsonville  district 56 

Shipments  and  prices  of  packed  apples  by  months,  Watsonville  district 59 

Trend  in  quantities  and  proportions  of  packed  and  loose  Yellow  Newtowns  and 

Yellow  Bellflowers 60 

Prices  of  principal  varieties  of  apples  shipped  from  the  Watsonville  district...  61 

Apple  production  in  the  Sebastopol  district  by  varieties  and  grades 63 

Distribution  of  Gravenstein  apples  from  the  Sebastopol  district 63 

Prices  of  Gravenstein  apples  by  sizes  and  grades 66 

Production  and  prices  of  Gravenstein  apples  in  the  Sebastopol  district 66 

Source  of  apples  received  in  California  cities 70 

Bibliography 72 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY* 

EMIL  EAUCHENSTEIN2 


SUMMARY    AND    CONCLUSIONS 

The  apple  is  the  most  important  fruit  grown  in  the  United  States, 
both  in  acreage  and  in  value.  In  total  quantities  of  fruit  produced  it 
approximately  equals  the  combined  tonnage  of  all  the  rest  of  the  fruits 
grown  in  the  United  States.  In  the  list  of  all  crops  it  ranked  seventh 
in  value  for  1923  and  1924.  The  acreage  in  bearing  apples  in  1919, 
however,  amounted  to  only  2.2  per  cent  of  the  corn  acreage,  or  an 
area  slightly  larger  than  the  total  land  area  of  Monterey  county.  In 
common  with  a  number  of  our  fruits  it  can  be  grown  under  a  wide 
variety  of  conditions  so  far  as  soil  and  climate  are  concerned,  hence 
it  will  be  physically  possible  greatly  to  increase  the  production  when- 
ever the  outlook  over  a  period  of  years  seems  to  promise  greater 
net  profits  to  the  producer  from  that  enterprise  than  from  other 
enterprises. 

The  trend  in  total  apple  production  in  the  United  States  from 
1889  to  1904  was  upward.  Since  1909  there  has  been  a  slight  down- 
ward trend,  but  judging  from  recent  surveys  in  the  East  of  trees  by 
age  groups  the  low  point  has  probably  been  passed.  Commercial 
production  has  been  increasing,  and  our  future  production  in  the  East 
will  undoubtedly  come  more  largely  from  farms  that  are  specializing 
to  a  considerable  extent  in  fruit  production.  The  Far-western  states 
as  a  whole  are  probably  near  the  peak  of  their  production  for  the  next 
decade.  California  will  probably  increase  its  production  for  several 
years  more,  judging  from  the  increase  in  the  number  of  bearing  trees 
from  1910  to  1925. 


i  The  author  is  particularly  indebted  to  Dr.  H.  E.  Erdman  and  Dr.  S.  W.  Shear 
of  the  Division  of  Agricultural  Ecoonmics  for  data  and  for  help  in  locating  other 
sources  of  data  used  in  this  bulletin.  The  United  States  Bureau  of  Agricultural 
Economics  cooperated  with  the  Division  of  Agricultural  Economics  in  financing 
the  apple  survey,  and  M.  E.  Cooper,  Agricultural  Economist,  of  the  former  organ- 
ization helped  in  planning  the  survey.  Mr.  L.  T.  Kirby  compiled  most  of  the  field 
data.  Thanks  are  also  due  the  various  shipping  organizations  that  gave  us  access 
to  their  records;  to  C.  H.  Beasley  and  Fred  Tugel  of  the  Bureau  of  Standard- 
ization, to  N.  I.  Nielsen  of  the  Califorina  Cooperative  Crop  Eeporting  Service  for 
furnishing  unpublished  data ;  and  to  H.  F.  Gould  of  the  California  Development 
Association  for  a  series  of  production  and  price  figures  on  Gravenstein  apples. 
Assistance  in  statistical  computation  was  rendered  by  Miss  Gladys  E.  Platts, 
statistical  clerk;  Miss  Euth  McChesney,  statistical  assistant,  and  Miss  Wynona 
Kirkpatrick,  student  assistant. 

2  Associate  in  Agricultural  Economics. 


4  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Apple  shipments  during  the  summer  months  increased  greatly 
from  1918  to  1926  both  in  California  and  in  the  rest  of  the  United 
States.  The  increase  in  June  shipments  is  largely  due  to  the  greater 
amounts  held  in  cold  storage.  The  increase  in  July  shipments  is  due 
to  a  marked  increase  in  the  shipment  of  Gravenstein  apples  from 
California  and  to  increases  in  other  parts  of  the  United  States  as  well. 
August  shipments  from  California  have  not  increased  so  much,  but 
from  the  rest  of  the  box  area  and  from  the  barrel  area  there  have 
been  decided  increases.  These  increases  in  shipments  during  the 
summer  months  have  undoubtedly  been  largely  responsible  for  the 
unsatisfactory  prices  received  for  Gravenstein  apples  during  recent 
years. 

The  peak  of  apple  shipments  comes  in  October,  which  is  also  the 
peak  month  for  grape  shipments.  The  important  perishable  fruits 
such  as  watermelons,  cantaloupes,  peaches,  and  strawberries  have  their 
peaks  of  shipments  three  to  five  months  earlier,  and  compete  mainly 
with  cold  storage  apples  and  early  apples  such  as  Gravensteins. 

Cold-storage  space  in  the  United  States  practically  trebled  from 
1914  to  1925.  The  quantity  of  apples  held  in  cold  storage  approxi- 
mately doubled  from  1915  to  1925.  The  peak  of  cold-storage  holdings 
consistently  comes  in  December. 

California  and  New  York  produce  more  than  one-half  of  the  United 
States  total  of  dried  apples.  Approximately  25  per  cent  of  the  Cali- 
fornia apples  are  dried.  Statistics  for  five  census  years  from  1899 
to  1923  show  that  the  lowest  proportion  of  the  total  United  States 
crop  dried  was  1.7  per  cent,  and  the  highest  proportion  5.0  per  cent. 
More  than  one-half  of  the  dried  apples  produced  in  the  United  States 
are  exported.  From  1.0  to  2.6  per  cent  of  the  United  States  apple 
crop  is  canned. 

California  supplies  more  than  one-half  of  the  apples  that  are 
shipped  to  its  two  main  markets,  Los  Angeles  and  San  Francisco. 
Most  of  the  Gravenstein  apples  are  shipped  to  markets  outside  of  the 
state,  but  the  later  apples  which  constitute  the  bulk  of  the  crop  are 
largely  marketed  within  the  state. 

Exports  of  fresh  apples  from  the  United  States  during  the  years 
1900  to  1925  have  fluctuated  widely  from  year  to  year  partly  because 
of  the  irregular  production  in  England  and  other  European  countries, 
and  partly  because  of  the  irregular  production  in  the  United  States. 
From  1900  to  1910  the  usual  exports  varied  from  two  to  four  million 
bushels.  Since  1910  our  annual  exports  have  been  between  four  and 
ten  millions  ten  years  out  of  the  sixteen.     From  1923  to  1925  our 


Bul.  445]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY  5 

exports  have  been  above  ten  million  bushels,  amounting  to  from 
11  to  12  per  cent  of  our  commercial  crop.  The  United  Kingdom 
received  from  80  to  90  per  cent  of  our  apple  exports  before  the  World 
War  and  from  60  to  94  per  cent  since  the  war.  Since  the  war  Sweden, 
Denmark,  Cuba,  Brazil,  and  Argentine  have  been  increasing  their 
imports  of  fresh  apples  from  the  United  States.  The  general  trend 
of  our  total  exports  has  been  upward  since  1900,  but  the  fluctuations 
have  been  violent  from  year  to  year.  Exports  of  canned  apples  are 
of  only  minor  importance.  Dried-apple  exports  appear  to  be  declin- 
ing. From  1910  to  1914  they  amounted  to  the  equivalent  of  almost 
six  million  bushels  of  fresh  apples  each  year.  From  1921  to  1925  they 
amounted  to  the  equivalent  of  approximately  three  million  bushels 
of  fresh  apples  each  year.  Our  net  export  of  apples  in  all  forms 
amounted  to  nearly  fifteen  million  bushels  of  fresh  apples  annually 
during  the  period  1923  to  1925. 

The  purchasing  power  of  apples  based  on  New  York  prices  from 
September  to  May  of  each  year  shows  an  upward  trend  from  1881  to 
1901.  Since  1901  the  purchasing  power  has  been  practically  on  a 
level.  Variations  in  purchasing  power  per  barrel  from  year  to  year 
occur  rather  consistently  in  the  opposite  direction  from  the  variations 
in  production.  The  Xew  York  price  in  September  averages  84  per 
cent  and  the  May  price  averages  113  per  cent,  of  the  average  Sep- 
tember-to-May  price.  The  January  and  February  prices  are  usually 
near  the  average  price  for  the  season. 

The  outlook  for  apple  production  in  the  United  States  as  a  whole 
is  not  particularly  discouraging  compared  with  other  farm  products. 
The  purchasing  power  of  apples  since  the  war  has  been  about  as  high 
as  during  the  pre-war  period,  while  the  average  of  all  farm  products 
is  somewhat  lower.  On  the  other  hand,  this  is,  for  several  reasons,  not 
an  opportune  time  for  great  expansion. 

1.  Other  fruits  have  been  increasing  and  have  displaced  apples  to 
a  certain  extent  in  the  consumer's  diet,  so  that  we  are  on  a  new  level 
of  apple  consumption  per  capita.  Since  the  consumer  has  cultivated 
the  habit  of  using  a  variety  of  fruits,  it  will  probably  be  expensive, 
if  at  all  possible,  to  get  him  to  consume  the  same  quantity  of  apples 
that  he  apparently  consumed  twenty-five  years  ago. 

2.  New  apple  orchards  do  not  begin  to  give  returns  on  the  invest- 
ment for  a  number  of  years  after  the  initial  investment  is  made. 
Should  there  be  a  decrease  in  the  general  price  level  such  as  occurred 
for  approximately  thirty  years  after  the  Napoleonic  Wars  and  after 
the  Civil  War,  it  would  increase  the  difficulty  of  getting  a  fair  return 


6  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION 

on  the  original  investment  made  during  a  period  of  higher  prices. 
This  point  applies  to  California  apple  growers  as  well  as  to  growers 
in  other  states. 

The  outlook  for  Gravenstein  apple  growing  in  California  is  not  as 
favorable  as  for  the  producers  of  later  apples,  judging  from  the  price 
trend  and  from  the  very  marked  increase  in  shipments  of  apples  and 
other  fruits  from  other  areas  in  June,  July,  and  August.  From  80 
to  85  per  cent  of  the  Gravenstein  apples  sold  fresh  are  usually  shipped 
to  distant  markets.  This  means  high  marketing  expense  in  markets 
where  competition  is  increasing.  Producers  of  late  apples  in  Cali- 
fornia can  market  most  of  their  fresh  apples  within  the  state,  having 
the  advantage  of  lower  marketing  costs  in  competition  with  apples 
from  other  western  states. 


OBJECT  OF  THIS   STUDY 

The  main  object  of  this  bulletin  is  to  present  and  to  analyze  the 
available  data  on  the  apple  industry  in  order  to  give  California  apple 
growers  and  others  a  better  understanding  of  the  present  situation 
and  future  outlook  of  their  industry.  Not  only  the  apple  industry  of 
California,  but  the  California  fruit  industry  as  a  whole  is  vitally 
affected  by  the  apple  production  of  the  United  States.  In  Part  I  of 
this  bulletin,  therefore,  the  subject  is  mainly  discussed  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  industry  as  a  whole.  Part  II  deals  more  particularly  with 
the  apple  industry  in  California  and  includes  the  results  of  a  survey 
carried  on  in  cooperation  with  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Agricul- 
tural Economics  regarding  prices,  marketing,  and  distribution  of 
California  apples  by  important  apple  districts. 

A  considerable  amount  of  information  from  many  sources  is  avail- 
able on  apples.  In  this  bulletin  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  present 
briefly  and  to  analyze  the  material  which  is  pertinent  to  the  problem, 
and  to  add  a  list  of  the  most  important  references  on  apples  for  the 
use  of  those  wishing  to  explore  certain  phases  of  the  subject  further. 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS   OF   THE  APPLE   INDUSTRY 


Part  I 
THE  SITUATION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 


IMPORTANCE   OF   THE    APPLE    INDUSTRY    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES 

Compared  with  other  crops  in  the  United  States  the  apple  ranked 
seventh  in  value  (average  values  of  1923  and  1924).  As  shown  in 
table  1,  corn  ranked  first  in  value  for  1923  and  1924  with  a  value  of 
$2,714,000,000.  The  apple  ranked  seventh  with  a  value  of  $230,000,000. 
The  peach  crop  was  the  next  fruit  crop  in  value  and  ranked  tenth  in 
the  list  of  all  crops  with  a  value  of  $80,000,000.  Grapes  and  oranges 
ranked  next  with  values  of  $73,000,000  and  $65,000,000  respectively. 
If  we  compare  these  crops  on  a  percentage  basis  with  corn — the  crop 
ranking  highest  in  value — equal  to  100,  apples  were  8.5  per  cent, 
peaches  2.9  per  cent,  grapes  2.7  per  cent,  and  oranges  2.4  per  cent. 

Most  of  the  fruit  crops  have  high  values  per  acre  compared  with 
the  field  crops,  hence  if  we  make  comparisons  on  the  basis  of  acreage, 
the  fruit  crops  generally  rank  lower  than  when  the  comparisons  are 
made  on  the  basis  of  total  value.  Thus  apples,  which  were  seventh  in 
value,  ranked  tenth  in  acreage,  and  oranges,  twelfth  in  value,  ranked 
twenty-third  in  acreage. 

TABLE  1 
Value  of  Important  Crops  in  the  United  States,  Average  of  1923  and  1924 


Rank 

Crop 

Value 
in  millions 
of  dollars 

Per  cent 
of  corn 
value 

1 

2,714 
1,678 
1,676 
937 
634  *f 
370 
230 
119*t 
112 

80 

73 

65 

61t 

59 

55  *t 

42*t 

30 

100  0 

2 
3 

Cotton  (seed  and  lint) 

61  8 
61.8 

4 

Wheat 

34  5 

5 

Oats 

23.4 

6 

Potatoes 

13.6 

7 

Apples 

8.5 

8 

Barley 

4.4 

9 

4.1 

10 

Peaches 

2.9 

11 

2.7 

12 

Oranges 

2.4 

13 

2.2 

14 

2  2 

15 

Rye 

2  0 

16 

1.5 

17 

Nuts 

1.1 

*  Based  on  December  1  value. 

f  These  figures  taken  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook    1925,   under  the  separate  statistics 
for  each  crop. 

Data  from  U.S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook  1925:107-109. 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION 


TABLE  2 
Acreage  of  Important  Crops  in  United  States,  1919 


Rank 

Crop 

Acreage* 

in 
thousands 

Per  cent 
of  corn 
acreage 

1 

Corn  (grain,  silage  and 

106,278 
96,121 
73,099 
37,991 
33,740 
7,679 
6,473 

4,747 

3,252 

2,355 

1,162 

1,125 

800 

636 

482 

375 

373 

343 
316 
295 
273 
272 
239 

100.0 

2 

90.4 

3 

Wheat 

68.8 

4 

Oats 

35.7 

5 

Cotton 

31.7 

6 

Rye 

7.2 

7 

Barley 

6.1 

8 

Sorghums  and  sugar  beets 

4.5 

9 

Potatoes 

3.1 

10 

Apples 

2.2 

11 

1.1 

12 

1.1 

13 

Peaches 

0.8 

14 

Sugar  beets 

0.6 

15 

Sorghums  for  syrup 

0.5 

16 

0.4 

17 

0.4 

18 

Nuts  (pecans,  almonds,  and 
walnuts) 

0.3 

19 

Tomatoes 

0.3 

20 

0.3 

21 

0.3 

22 

0.3 

23 

0.2 

*  Bearing  acreage  for  the  fruit  crops. 

Data  from  U.S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook  1921:434-469. 

The  acreage  of  the  important  crops  in  the  United  States  for  1919 
are  shown  in  table  2.  The  list  of  crops  has  been  extended  beyond  those 
shown  in  table  1  in  order  to  include  oranges  in  their  proper  order 
when  ranked  according  to  acreage.  Corn  lead  all  other  crops  in  1919 
in  acreage  with  106,278,000  acres.  Apples  lead  the  fruit  crops  with 
2,355,000  acres.  Peaches  were  next  among  the  fruits  and  thirteenth 
of  all  of  the  crops  with  800,000  acres.  Grapes,  pears,  plums  and 
prunes,  and  oranges  ranked  third,  fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth  in  area 
among  the  fruits  and  sixteenth,  twentieth,  twenty-first,  and  twenty- 
third,  respectively,  in  the  list  of  all  crops. 

The  relative  area  occupied  by  these  crops  in  1919  can  be  seen  more 
clearly  in  the  last  column  of  table  2,  which  shows  the  relation  of  the 
area  in  each  crop  to  that  in  corn.  Thus  the  apple  acreage  was  2.2  per 
cent  of  the  corn  acreage.  Peaches  occupied  0.8  per  cent  as  much  area 
as  was  occupied  by  corn.     Grapes,   pears,   plums  and  prunes,   and 


BUL.  445]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY  9 

oranges  occupied  0.4,  0.3,  and  0.2  per  cent,  respectively,  of  the  acre- 
age devoted  to  corn.  The  significance  of  this  comparison  of  acreages 
devoted  to  various  crops  is  apparent  when  we  remember  that  all  of 
the  fruits  listed  above  except  oranges  can  be  grown  under  a  fairly 
wide  range  of  soil  and  climatic  conditions.  It  is  therefore  physically 
possible  to  greatly  increase  the  area  devoted  to  many  fruits,  especially 
apples.  Such  increases  will  occur  if  prices  rise  or  costs  are  lowered 
so  that  the  net  incomes  to  fruit  growers  will  be  greater  than  the  net 
incomes  which  they  can  obtain  from  other  enterprises. 


APPLE-PRODUCING   AREAS   IN  THE    UNITED   STATES 

Maps  have  been  drawn  showing  the  acreage  and  production  of 
apples  in  the  United  States  for  1919  by  counties,  but  they  are  some- 
what misleading,  as  far  as  showing  a  normal  distribution  of  apple 
production  is  concerned.  The  acreage  figures  are  not  representative 
of  production  because  of  the  wide  differences  in  yields  per  acre  in 
various  sections.  The  West  generally  has  considerably  heavier  yields 
per  acre  than  the  East.  Production  figures  for  1919  are  misleading 
because  yields  were  above  normal  in  the  West  in  1919  and  much  below 
normal  in  the  East.  The  average  yields  for  1923  and  1924  are  more 
nearly  representative  of  normal  conditions  in  all  parts  of  the  United 
States,  hence  table  3  and  figure  1  have  been  prepared  on  this  basis. 

Table  3  shows  that  the  average  production  of  apples  in  1923  and 
1924  was  highest  in  Washington  with  27,500,000  bushels,  and  second 
highest  in  New  York  with  23,500,000  bushels.  In  both  states  pro- 
duction is  concentrated  largely  in  two  or  three  areas  as  is  shown  in 
figure  1.  Washington  production  is  concentrated  in  the  Yakima 
Valley,  the  Wenatchee  Valley,  and  Spokane  County.  New  York  pro- 
duction is  concentrated  southeast  of  Lake  Erie  and  Lake  Ontario  and 
in  the  southeastern  part  of  the  state. 

Another  important  area  extends  through  the  Appalachian  region 
from  Pennsylvania,  through  Maryland,  Virginia,  West  Virginia,  and 
North  Carolina.  Virginia  ranked  third  in  production  among  all  of 
the  states  with  12,250,000  bushels,  Pennsylvania  seventh  with  9,328,000 
bushels,  West  Virginia  eighth  with  7,660,000  bushels,  and  North 
Carolina  twelfth  with  4,525,000  bushels.  Michigan,  along  the  eastern 
shore  of  Lake  Michigan,  has  an  important  apple-producing  area,  and 
the  state  as  a  whole  ranked  fifth  in  production  with  9,580,000  bushels. 


10 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


The  New  England  states,  with  the  exception  of  the  extreme 
northern  part,  show  a  high  concentration  in  apple  production,  but 
owing  to  the  small  area  in  each  state  the  individual  states  do 
not  rank  high  in  production 


Through  the  north-central  states  and 


TABLE  3 
United  States  Apple  Production  by  States  and  Sections,  Average  1923-1924 

Thousands  of  bushels 


State  and  section 

Average 
1923-1924 

State  and  section 

Average 
1923-1924 

New  England  states: 
Maine 

2,871 
1,199 

708 
3,330 

387 
1,540 

West  north  central  states: 

5,686 

2,183 

940 

South  Dakota 

181 

3,575 
1,185 

Connecticut 

Total 

South  central  states: 
Kentucky 

Total 

10,035 

23,500 
2,502 
9,328 

13,750 

Middle  Atlantic  states: 

4,163 

New  Jersey 

Tennessee 

Arkansas 

3,056 

3,563 

Alabama 

961 

35,330 

1,225 
2,075 
437 
1,182 
12,250 
7,660 
4,525 

Mississippi 

195 

31 

South  Atlantic  states: 

Oklahoma 

1,205 

Delaware 

300 

Maryland 

Total 

Far  western  states: 

South  Carolina 

13,474 

Georgia 

Virginia 

3,017 

3,889 
27,500 

West  Virginia 

North  Carolina 

29,354 

3,418 
1,859 
9,373 
6,950 
9,580 

7,250 

9,702 

640 

Total 

East  north  central  states: 

Indiana 

43 

Wisconsin 

1,120 

Ohio 

99 

Illinois 

Utah    . 

860 

Michigan 

48 

Total 

Total 

31,180 

54,168 

187,291 

Data  for  1923  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook  1925:859;  for  1924  from  Crops 
and  Markets  Monthly  Sup.  3(12)  :401. 

the  northern  part  of  the  south-central  states  there  is  generally  a  fair 
distribution,  with  some  concentration  in  southern  Illinois,  north- 
western Missouri,  and  northwestern  Arkansas.  The  state  of  Illinois 
as  a  whole  ranked  tenth  in  apple  production  with  6,950,000  bushels. 
Missouri  ranked  eleventh  with  5,686,000  bushels. 

Farther  west  there  is  the  Grand  Junction-Delta-Montrose  district 
of  Colorado  and  the  Boise  district  of  Idaho.     In  Oregon  the  Hood 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS   OF   THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY 


11 


River  and  Willamette  valleys  show  high  production.  The  state  pro- 
duced 7,250,000  bushels  and  ranked  ninth  in  the  United  States. 
California  ranked  fourth  in  apple  production  in  1923  and  1924,  but 
it  usually  ranks  fifth  or  sixth.  Its  production  is  concentrated  mainly 
along  the  coast  in  two  areas:  the  Sonoma  Valley  north  of  San  Fran- 
cisco and  the  Pajaro  Valley  south  of  San  Francisco. 

Apple  Production  in  the  United  States,  Average  of  1923  and  1924 


Eoch  Dor  Represents 
ZOO  OOO  Bushels 


Fig.  1. — The  average  yields  for  1923  and  1924  are  fairly  representative  of 
normal  yields  in  all  parts  of  the  United  States.  Production  is  concentrated 
along  the  northern  Atlantic  coast,  the  Appalachian  Mountains,  the  southern  and 
eastern  shores  of  Lakes  Ontario,  Erie,  and  Michigan,  and  in  the  state  of 
Washington. 


TRENDS    IN   APPLE   PRODUCTION 

Statistics  on  total  apple  production  by  states  are  available  for  each 
year  since  1899.  They  show  that  production  increased  at  a  faster  rate 
than  population  up  to  about  1906.  For  the  period  from  1909  to  1926 
as  a  whole  the  production  trend  is  downward,  although  the  trend  may 
be  leveling  out,  judging  by  the  production  records  since  1922. 
Statistics  of  the  commercial  crop,3  which  are  available  by  states  for 
each  year  since  1916,  show  a  faster  rate  of  increase  than  population. 

3  By  commercial  production  is  meant  that  portion  of  the  total  crop  which  is 
sold  for  consumption  as  fresh  fruit.  Folger  and  Thompson(ls)  state  that  more 
than  90  per  cent  of  the  orchards  in  some  states  have  never  been  sprayed,  and 
that  the  spraying  operation  gives  rise  to  one  of  the  first  sharp  distinctions 
between  commercial  and  non-commercial  orchards.  Apples  from  unsprayed 
orchards  may  find  their  way  into  commercial  channels  to  a  considerable  extent 
during  years  of  short  crops.  During  years  of  large  crops  a  large  proportion  of 
the  poor-grade  apples  are  wasted. 


12 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION 


*  1 


H 

rr! 

H 

« 

DC 

pa 

o 

Q 

jd 

H 

EH 

,_, 

00 

IC 

00 

oe 

cr 

o  m 

■<*<  o  o  co  o   e 

c 

>      t-. 

T- 

r^ 

■O     it 

O    CO    CO    LO    to    tc 

o 

to 

DC 

e 

to 

OS 

cr_ 

c- 

a- 

oc 

o 

o 

es 

"* 

I      «H 

OS 

irj 

or 

cr 

to 

IC 

es 

<o  iq  n  oe 

M    1(    ■*    CO    O    N    If 

"* 

to 

■* 

w  ev 

'         LX^ 

c: 

C5 

CO 

cr 

e^ 

LT 

loto         cnojootocoe 

»       ^      . 

(X 

C 

3 

CM 

oo 

i<r 

CC 

«« 

oc 

w 

cc 

ec 

cr 

»-     ?.«o 

cc 

r- 

cr 

1^ 

-d 

cr 

CN    i- 

"CK     O 

«       cfi  CM 

.    h2 

^ 

cc 

■<* 

c~ 

00 

c 

<= 

oooes          ■"tioooocoiou' 

>      Oi  ^h 

to 

cs 

c 

fS] 

c- 

O 

cc 

tc 

«o 

o 

cc 

o 

cc 

■<t 

CC 

05 

cc 

o   lo   as  «*   e> 

o> 

© 

o 

t^ 

CN 

«* 

CC 

M 

cc 

CO    cc 

cs 

■*t 

•rt             UJ    Tf    t((    t«             CO    N    N    CO    CO    <*    r 
t-t                                          iH                                                            TH     f 

!     ^S 

s 

CN 

C 

iot-hlooo         oooooooo 

cf 

3 

t» 

cMin         t-hoooooo^ 

i  -^ 

m 

o 

cc 

o 

o 

cc 

t- 

to 

cc 

uc 

c 

cocoooo         ocooolooo« 

OS 

1^ 

o 

tO             CM    i- 

m  en         coLOcooooooev 

^ 

CO 

iH 

CO 

«N 

I- 

-«t 

rt 

CO 

i    to    c 

!           0)   s_^ 

o 

t> 

oc 

O 

o 

c 

«» 

c 

o  o  if 

O    O    LO    c 

l       pH  OT 

o- 

c- 

.r 

o 

cm 

OS 

** 

o 

o 

C6 

CC 

o 

o 

CN 

a 

GC 

LfJ 

cr 

"  en 

w   ■*  cn  ^         TjHcoLrTccTtCo'es 

i  ^ 

CC 

LO 

CN 

^ 

lO    c 
on 

h- 

r- 

<o  ^  o  e 

o  o   cm   !>■  o  »eH   e\ 

e 

lr- 

— 

o- 

or 

tc 

5 

ev 

O    O    CO    CO    O    T-t    C 

.& 

oo 

LO 

o 

CO 

10 

«* 

kO 

OD 

cc 

cc 

tH 

■* 

00              CMLOOCOLOIOCS 

CO 

c 

cc 

Tf 

CN 

oo         co  ^   cj  co  to  o)  e? 

1- 

CM 

in  a 

3 

cr 

Ifl 

CN 

o   o   »- 

:    fio 

o 

T- 

t> 

cs 

C 

Cv 

oo  o  c- 

cm   o   lo   o   to   e- 

<M 

cr 

IC 

tc 

l^ 

O 

cc 

CM 

o- 

oc 

tC 

t> 

CC 

c 

CNJ     OO    It 

00    tJ(    io    i- 

o  oo  tc 

OS 

3 

CC 

g 

CC 

OC 

CC 

CO 

CO 

cc 

tc 

CC 

CO 

Tf 

es 

Lf 

■"^CCllA              CMCC'— l^COOC 
y-l                            CO                    •*!    «*■ 

en 

CC 

~ 

C 

o 

CC 

CC 

<* 

oc 

« 

cr>   •*    o 

oo  o  Lo   i— i  o  esi  t« 

t3JJ 

lO    C3 

05 

y- 

O     O    N    O     U>    « 

oo  n  a  cm  w  c 

o 

c- 

LC 

LT 

cr 

cr 

oe 

CT 

tc 

cc 

CM 

1— 

•H 

Cs 

CNl     i- 

tc 

*<* 

OS 

p» 

Tl 

ifi 

oc 

Ti- 

C5 

c- 

Cs 

">* 

if: 

to 

lO 

Ir-CNI              COCOLOCOOOOCN 

^  § 

oc 

er 

or 

a 

~ 

c 

«H 

lO 

to 

cr>    o    O    ^ 

t~~ 

o    — 

OS  f*i 

oo 

r^ 

or 

CV 

CC 

\r 

« 

cc 

« 

Cfi 

LO      02     C 

CO     O     CTs    OO     CO     0O     «N 

e- 

CC 

c 

t 

e 

cc_ 

tc 

c 

l^ 

O     CN     t-              O     CM    ^     00     LO     00     tfi 

1  ^ 

OS 

c- 

5 

CC 

0) 

e 

LC 

c^- 

u- 

K 

cr 

t* 

-«t 

cr 

CN     ■*     r- 

c 

CM     r- 

CD    M     CO    N    ff 

O    Pi 

eo  tc 

rH    CS 

c- 

cr 

cr 

o 

oc 

C 

C0 

c 

or 

cC 

§ 

cr 

■n 

CN 

o  •* 

«H  ^ 

t^ 

CC 

c 

c 

C 

CC 

y. 

CN 

co    O" 

cc 

►c 

t> 

IC 

<= 

oo   00   CO    oo   o>    c- 

o 

CO       T- 

C»             r- 

<* 

l> 

w. 

-* 

LTJ 

oc 

oc 

»o  ■*   cq  if 

IM    CO    Oi    ■*    CO   «    IS 

e< 

us 

T| 

Lf 

cr 

C-. 

rr 

r— 

«d 

c- 

tc 

CO     Oi 

^ 

CD 

C" 

o> 

c 

CC- 

<■/ 

w 

-  Sg 

c 

CN 

CS 

1" 

IT. 

oo    cr 

e»" 

CM     LO     U" 

lO    N     tO     CO    »    r 

«r 

C5 

w 

\r 

oo    to           CC 

<r 

es 

0O    ">* 

Cr 

Ol 

CC 

»* 

■«t 

■*     f 

es 

CM 

i- 

to 

ifl 

-t 

e 

CC 

cr 

eC 

CC 

<N 

cr 

cr 

t£ 

cr 

T- 

O    CO   o   « 

lo 

IC 

-1 

ir 

t^     LO     U" 

CO 

LT 

TH 

LC 

cr 

oc 

o  LO  o 

O      t-       CO      T- 

CO  ■*   c 

.  CM 

oo 

tr 

IC 

00             CC 

r-. 

>c 

<st 

o- 

t> 

00©              CXICOCOC-              N    H    N    w    ^    i- 

O  OS 

,~ 

1-1 

es 

es 

£"T 

«vj 

O 

c 

oe 

ec 

cr 

<r~ 

e 

CT 

o- 

CT 

3 

O     r- 

y*    e 

16  ^ 

■** 

c 

C 

a 

o>   cr 

C 

o   ec 

CC 

cc 

Cs 

L0 

CO    o    t- 

Lf 

t^ 

CO    CO    O    G 

CO 

o» 

cr 

c^ 

tc 

ir. 

c 

CT 

ev 

c^- 

1^ 

5 

en 

02    00    LO     tC 

"      co  2 

^ 

es 

es 

li- 
es 

P 

t-H 

C 

c 

o 

a- 

■~ 

cr 

c 

o- 

CI 

cr 

en 

c 

o   ct>  oi 

So 

»- 

CO   to 

00 

en" 

cr 

"  C 

LO 

K 

oc 

OO    oc 

"  es 

l- 

"  es 

CB     05    Oi    <J 
CO     CO     CO     t- 

CC 

** 

OS    LO     O    ^ 

■«* 

-     02^ 

•  »s 

^  OS 

■rr 

cr 

cr 

lH 

g 

CC 

CM 

s 

c5 

tc 

5 

c 

■cr 

cn 

o- 

IC 

p; 

cr 

o 

00 

C 
CN 

a 

o  <= 

cr>    t- 

3 

a 

cc 

O    O    O    O! 
N    in    N    91 

es 
es 

."S  °° 

lO 

-t 

c 

S 

LC 

C 

t^ 

t- 

c 

V 

1- 

Ol 

o- 

i- 

c 

00     LO     t" 

t~    Tti    lo    rt 

"H 

1— 1 

r- 

es 

es 

es 

o» 

C 

cr 

OO 

cr 

— 

1 

c 

c 

C 

c 

a 

cr 

cr 

» 

C 

s 

o 

«H  tH 

y— I 

cc 

c 

<=r>  cr 

e> 

ir 

lo  t^  oe 

c 

O 

to" 

cr 

C 

es 

t> 

l> 

ev- 

es 

oc 

cr 

c- 

s 

00 

CC 

cs 

CS 

"        n^ 

m    0 

o 

2  o 

© 

ev 

cr 

e 

fj  'T. 

c 

er 

C 

cr 

e 

c 

o- 

« 

cr 

o 

c 

e* 

ec 

<r 

CO 

oo 

l^ 

O              <M 
00             r- 

l> 

t- 

00 

CO 

1- 

l> 

Lf 

>f 

LO     CN 

tc 

u: 

co"  ■*"  oc 

i- 

■  6$ 

00 

cr 

a 

OC 

CC 

LT 

«- 

cv 

c 

o- 

<CO 

o 

OS 

LO 

©" 

-i- 

•  r 

CS 

3 

i- 

8      2 

t*»*        cc 

00 

c< 

1- 

ce 

CO    Cft    cc 
CO   o   cc 

Ttl    CO     CN 

s 

ir- 
es 

CC 

o- 
a- 

tc 

es 
cs 

cC 

CM    ^1 
CM     tfi 

cc 

CC 
CC 

CO 

c 

co   co   m 

&•    cr>    c< 

"  rt"  r)T  xr, 

es 

co   ?-> 

*      iH    be 

a 

"rt 

o 
H    .. 

..     0> 
4)     C3 
"S     « 

■%  a 
9  J 

bl  <J 

a 

?  -^ 

Cy    •  -. 

»  a 

C 

a 

9 

1 
e 

E 

I 

i   ? 

c 

co 
eg 

<5 

CO 

C 
c3     cj 

3    ] 

'     b 

"5  •> 

O 
CO 

a 
'I 
'E 

3 

9 

.E 

c 

C 

t 

c 

en 

0) 

<n 

a 

CO 

o 

XI 

is 

%  c 

■ 

B 
1 

e 

b 

5 

■1 

CO 
CD 

CO 

'oj 

"H 

o 

1  s 

(3     a; 

co   ^ 
4) 

C 

Eh 

co 

13  > 

1     5 

rCj      a- 

o 

CO 

V 

■1 
S 
c 
c 

0. 

H 

V 

rr 

ir 

c^ 

< 

c 

CO 

CI) 

co 

CI     C 

S    * 

C£     O 
[3h 

C 

e 

X 

P 

c 

"b 
C 

1 

1 

B 

c 

b 
a 

c 

1 

1 

c 

W 

Cv 

tx 

a 

Sod 

ft      1 

rH 
OS 
rH 

Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY 


13 


Total  production  data  from  1909  to  1926  for  the  more  important 
states,  the  total  for  the  far-western  states,  and  for  the  United  States  are 
given  in  table  4.  Data  on  commercial  production  by  states  from  1916 
to  1926  are  given  in  table  5.  Figure  2  shows  the  total  United  States 
production  and  commercial  production,  far-western  production,  and 


Trends  in  Apple  Production  and  Population   in  the  United  States,  1909-192G 

Millions 


/909  &/0    //       IZ      /3      /4    J9/5    t<5      /?     /8      &   /9ZO  Zf     ZZ     £3    Z4    /9ZS  Z6 

Fig.  2. — Illustrating  parts  of  tables  4  and  5.  For  the  whole  period  1909- 
1926  the  trend  in  total  United  States  apple  production  has  been  downward, 
while  the  trends  in  commercial  and  far-western  production  have  been  upward. 
If  we  consider  only  the  past  five  years,  the  trends  of  United  States  total  pro- 
duction and  of  far-western  production  are  practically  level. 

United  States  population.  The  smooth  lines  drawn  through  the 
irregular  production  lines  show  the  trend  in  production  for  each 
period  as  a  whole.  The  average  trend  downward  in  total  United 
States  production  since  1909  has  been  316,000  bushels  a  year.  On 
this  basis  the  normal  crop  for  1926  would  be  181,628,000  bushels.  The 
average  trend  upward  in  commercial  production  since  1916  has  been 
3,650,000  bushels  per  year.  On  this  basis  the  normal  commercial  crop 
for  1926  would  be  106,250,000  bushels,  or  58.5  per  cent  of  the  normal 
total  crop.  For  the  years  1916-1919  the  commercial  crop  averaged 
44  per  cent  of  the  total  crop. 


14 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA— EXPERIMENT    STATION 


c 

CN 

ir 

c 

c 

g 

e 

p 

00    o 

oc 

O    fr- 

IC 

tj< 

cs   r^ 

oo  o  oo 

CM     CO    00 

CO 

ic    CC 

ec 

3 

« 

IC 

©         c 

cc 

oo   es 

»— I     CO     lO     CO     CD    tO 

Is-    o 

CM 

CO     fr- 

-t 

t> 

C 

IA            «i~ 

cc 

CO     t> 

o    oo    r^    -<t<    rf    US 

■**!     OO 

CM     OS    U» 

CS 

to             O 

CS 

it}    t- 

CO 

CO     -»f 

CS 

oo 

es 

«c 

o 

iC 

e 

es         a 

cc 

^< 

-*  c 

>o   o   — 

s 

•<*<    O    00 

io   ic   es 

iC 

c>- 

CC 

c 

en         ic 

CN 

cr 

o 

CO     <= 

*    O    N 

•^    CO 

OS    U)    * 

CM 

O 

r~ 

« 

a 

OB 

tH           t- 

OC 

C 

to 

O      !C      CO      H      T( 

oo 

CSI     OS 

00    00 

tO             OC 

c^ 

oo 

CM 

CO    »c 

00 

CS 

c 

cc 

a 

>C 

c- 

>o 

eo         -* 

CO 

C 

§ 

CM     U- 

c: 

o    ■* 

-*  c 

■* 

©      CSt     © 

y 

1^ 

oc 

c- 

CT 

ic 

o         — 

cc 

-t 

oo   c^- 

O     O     OS     ^H 

ir 

CO 

CO    CO     CS 

~ 

oc 

t 

C 

oc 

^<              CM 

OC 

c<- 

00 

o  ■* 

CO     O     CS     i-l 

Tf<       t- 

co   ©   r- 

OS 

CN 

t©              — 

cst    IA 

CM* 

CO     CO 

en 

^  oo 

C 

o 

fr- 

c 

C 

s 

s>     § 

c 

OC 

oo 

o>  c 

o    -*<    oo   »-t 

CO    O    O    OS    OS    O    «-l 

CO 

*i 

IC 

ee 

c 

t 

a>  o 

OJ    O    O    »o    C 

to 

oo    t^ 

IC 

©  ©  es 

CS 

■* 

-* 

o 

oc 

e> 

!C 

t—            •   CC 

^ 

fr- 

oo 

O     O 

cs  co   •"*<  cr> 

00    >o 

W     CN    H 

OS 

■*!              CM 

— 

t- 

CO 

Tj<       CO 

^i 

CS 

-H      U» 

co   fr- 

«*t 

v 

c 

^<         c 

CC 

00    ■*« 

-<f<  — 

O    t^    CO    u» 

CO    c 

O    CN 

©   oo   oo 

CS 

OS     IC 

oc 

00     CO     CS 

o        c 

if. 

o 

CM     CO     >0     05    O     O 
00     OO    CO     O     CO     ^< 

CN     CO    IC 

OS    CO     t> 

CS 

CO    cc 

K 

cc 

c<- 

CS          cz 

C£ 

CD    00 

co   fr- 

CO    CO    tf» 

OS 

00             0C 

r- 

CO     00 

■>*l     lO 

CS 

>-i   to 

es 

<-H     C 

00     ffl    t*     C 

©         c 

ec 

CO     O 

O    fr-    — 

^    CS   •* 

cs  »o  o  c 

t^    ift 

fr- 

« 

-**«    <- 

CM    i- 

en         o   o 

co   ie» 

O0     CN     C3)    CN     ©    rt 

OS     N    OS 

id    00 

CS 

OS     C" 

CO    *c 

CS 

<o         os  cc 

CO    CJ> 

O     CO     i- 

CO     — 

Ml 

■<«l 

OS 

eo          as 

o 

CO 

to 

O    C 

o  ic  ic   ic 

ia          o   -* 

in 

lO    CO    fr-    ~*    c<- 

CS 

-<*<  e 

CM     »C 

©   oo  en 

o 

OS     I- 

fr-     CS     CSt     "«t 

to         ©   •<* 

5i  oo 

CO     CM     O     O     O0     lO 

eo    co   fr-    i- 

iCi    to 

03 

co   it 

IC     *- 

CM    cc 

t-            IC    ic 

CO    to 

CO     CD     i- 

»c  ->*  o 

<M     CM     fr- 

CO     00 

0O            Oi    CN 

■>*<  to 

"  •>*    OS 

e 

CSI 

IA 

es 

CS 

ic    — 

O)    U5    i«    N 

es         us  oc 

f^    o 

O    i- 

»  o  »f  rt 

CO    CO    o    o 

©  fr-  es 

OS 

<M    co    O    C 

OS    «■ 

IA              CM     CC 

fr^   t- 

■«*<  •- 

CO    Kt,    cs    to 

OO     CO     CC 

t   i-   t- 

O    "" 

CD    O    — 

CO    t-             O)    c 

CM    U> 

00    -*<    r- 

•H     CO    00 

ee  o 

IO     CO     t- 

OS 

CM 

^t             00    r- 

CM    «N 

CM    CO 

to 

CO 

^h     IA 

oo   cc 

t?    C 

O    -* 

CO           C 

o 

O    OO    H    U)     CN 

es 

c= 

cc 

id    o- 

co    os   e>j 

00 

r.c 

O     CD     CS 

^1              IC     -*t 

O      Oi     — 

00     -<t 

«* 

CM    C 

o 

OS    IA 

CO    P" 

CO     Oi 

CC 

(O              00    15 

CO    t- 

1^    fr-    «5    ■>**    O- 

eo 

o- 

CS 

es 

os  oo 

es         fr- 

" co  es 

CS 

CM     Tj< 

o 

CS 

00* 

cs 

©  c 

CC 

IC 

fr-    OC 

ee         •<* 

t 

e 

OS    OC 

CS    »o    CS 

8 

c 

ut 

Tf     CM 

oc 

©  en 

IC    cs 

fr- 

O    CC 

O)    N     K)    OO    t»              fr--     CS 

co   to 

O    cc 

CO    T)l    N 

OO     CS 

00    " 

t^ 

OS 

CM    a- 

CO     CO 

CS 

©         <- 

»c  eo 

»o   c<- 

co  us  cc 

*". 

CC 

co 

CC 

OS    O 

es*        cc 

cm*  o>" 

en* 

CO 

*-T  •> 

00    •<* 

-i 

| 

cr_ 

©              CM 

eo 

«C 

oo 

-H     •* 

e 

CM     >C 

es 

CC 

c 

IC    IC 

CC 

©  es 

00    i-l 

CO 

c 

cr 

a 

00    CC 

00              CC 

oc 

o» 

^     O)    CM     ■*    >- 

t> 

Tf 

CS      r-l 

o 

CO    ic 

-f 

©           cc 

cc 

CD    tO 

CM     OO    »- 

CM     CC 

oo 

IC 

o 

-* 

CO    00 

"*l               CC 

CO     »H 

CM 

CO     •«*< 

o" 

es* 

i-i  ^jT 

CS 

tH 

co 

eo 

<u 

1 

CO 

s 

5 

CO 

a 

93 

SB 

( 

"3 

a 

o 

O 

8 

d 
m 

a 
3 

s 

a 
e 
'S 

t 

t 
a 

s 

i 
e 

! 

d 

1 

| 

- 

1 

1 

E 
3 

C 

o 

4     \ 

<   >~ 
a>    js 

a; 

g 

§ 

> 

c 
c 

a 

c 
H 

a 

o 

h 

C 

a 

C 

13 

E 

n 

c 

C 

a 

b. 
"E 

c. 

c 

s 

£ 
a 

"c 
C 

a 

c 

c 

c 

► 

c 
a 

cr 

o 
Q 

cc 
M 
<s 
S 

t- 
X. 

a 

C 

1 
| 

is 

p 

fe 

> 

s 

0 

££ 

Z 

"§ 

o£ 

p 

§  £ 

co 

i 

c 

S  (73 

M 

0 

ai 

a! 

fe 

^r 

w 

p% 

Bul.  445  J 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS   OF   THE  APPLE   INDUSTRY 


15 


O  <M  o  t»  o 

Tf  N  !N  t)<  OO 

H  Ol  »  «  Tf 


t^  -S*  CM 


O  CM  O  O  -h 

«  ■*  a  O  IN 


o  o  o  o  o 


o  o  o  co  oo 

-*  -*>  o  •*  o 

■H  oo  cm  so  t- 

— "  ■<*<"  in" 


19  O)  O  N  K5 


en  cm 


00  IO  OO  SO  CM 
«5  t*  S!  N  «5 
««     OS     <M     IM     IC 


M     O     H     T|l 

f-    00    SO    SO 


Tf    CO    t^    O    o 

N    M     M    N    rt 

m   a  li  •*  » 


ioior^coco©oo-»tit- 
■or^or^roooifto-^TH 

N    N    O)    IO  -^     SO     ~«     -*    O* 


U5    IO     ffl    W    W 


cm  ©  ©  o  ©  o  o 

■<*<    »o    1/5    OO    CO    © 


O0     CM    O     (0 

co"  co"  3   Jg 


CM    ©    «© 

ffl    »    N 

CM     CO 


2§ 


I^»-h©iOO©»HCO 

<SN«NONt»» 


OS    o 


O    O    SO    IO    SO    00    u» 


O    O    05    tfi    CM    O 


OS  o   o   •<*< 

CO     00     rt<     C35 


t^     O0     CM     CO     t-    O 

oo   >o    SO   ©»   oo 


s   w   *  io  ■*   o  u) 
o  oo  i«  -<*  —>   o  «© 


«5     O     CM     O     t-     -*     CO 

•<*<   io   o    io    cm   e»   cm 


cm  co  •*  e»  t- 


CO    "5    «5    CO    CO 

a>   co   **<    so   so 


IO     O     ■*     CO 


OS  o   o   io   t-  er> 

m   oj  o  o  oi  (D 


•»*     CM    O     CO 


ifl     N    ^     (O 


N     N     M    91     N 


2S 


O)    O    N 

2gS 


o   i»<   ■**<   cm   m   co   -h 


CM     CM     00     OS 


CO    O    ©     SO 


■^     O0     CO     — <     CO 
1C     l»     M     "C    N 


CM    CO    "5    CO 


00    CO 

00    -H 
00    O 


N     N    M    H 


OS      SO     CM      Oi     CM 


SO     SO     CM    <0 
H    CO    u» 


CM     CJ5     CO 
CM     ^h     O 

N     ffl    -H 


»o   oo   cm   o   © 

CM     •"*<     U5     SO    CO     -  - 

»o         w  »  h  ia 


©     M 

co   cm   ©   eo 


S5    N    »    U)    H 


lO     SO    OO     CO 


CM     lf5     O     CO 


N    »    M     M    91    N 
NUJNN3N91* 

so  -«*<  »o  e-  ^« 
**<   CM   co   eo  to 


ss* 


Ms   3 

£  o  o 

I  -a   c  >  4  ,a 
.3  ?  m  -g  -g  -a 

Q    ci    i?    e     O    n     » 


M    O 


O      W      £ 


rfj    »    g    *    cj  3  "S 
■g  «  H  -<  Eh  O  < 

o 


o    > 


5  5 

o    o 


re  o 

I H 

CO  CQ 

OS  r-1 

iH  ^ 

00 

§§• 

^2 


Oh  <V 


s 


m 

co  £    • 

rH    O    O 

I         Jh       l-l 

g  <H     fc>0 

h2& 
<m  ^  53 

01  J<  ^ 

OS    S 
.  I— I 

CO  &►» 

too 

»<H    09 

!•! 
o    .5 

^  (D  _, 

^   s 

o 

O     ^     fH 

figg 

1-^  ^    . 

£%£ 

cs     . 

®K  ^ 
hP  53 
OS  „  &fi 
<-H  CY3  tC 

••H  .^ 

-m    O 

„«su     91 

OS    o 
rH  m 


16  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION 

Judging  from  the  production  data  from  1922  to  1926,  one  would 
expect  no  further  downward  trend  in  total  apple  production  in  the 
United  States  in  the  near  future.  The  commercial  crop  seems  to  be 
still  on  the  increase,  but  the  far-western  area  seems  to  have  reached 
its  peak  of  production  from  present  plantings.  Both  bearing  and 
non-bearing  trees  declined  from  1920  to  1925. 


TREND  IN  THE  NUMBER  OF  APPLE  TREES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 

According  to  the  United  States  Census  the  number  of  apple  trees 
in  this  country  of  bearing  age  and  not  of  bearing  age  has  been  declin- 
ing since  1910.  Table  6  gives  the  data  by  states,  and  the  percentage 
of  trees  not  of  bearing  age  to  those  of  bearing  age  for  each  period. 
In  1910  the  number  of  apple  trees  of  bearing  age  in  the  United  States 
was  151,322,840 ;  in  1920,  115,309,165 ;  and  in  1925,  103,697,180.  This 
is  shown  graphically  by  the  solid  line  in  figure  3.  An  idea  of  the 
relative  number  can  be  obtained  if  we  take  the  1910  bearing  trees  as 
a  base  equal  to  100.  The  relative  numbers  in  1920  and  1925  would 
then  be  76  and  68,  respectively.  The  decline  in  number  of  trees  not 
of  bearing  age  is  still  more  striking,  especially  between  1910  and  1920, 
the  number  declining  from  65,791,848  in  1910  to  36,195,085  in  1920, 
and  to  34,299,348  in  1925.  Taking  the  number  in  1910  as  equal  to 
100  the  relative  numbers  in  1920  and  1925  would  be  55  and  52, 
respectively. 

Judging  by  the  decline  in  the  number  of  trees  of  bearing  age  and 
not  of  bearing  age  in  the  United  States  from  1910  to  1920  and  the 
smaller  proportional  decline  from  1920  to  1925,  one  would  expect 
some  further  decrease  in  the  number  of  trees  of  bearing  age  in  the 
1930  census. 

Surveys  of  the  number  of  trees  by  age-groups  in  commercial 
orchards  made  in  1926  in  Ohio;(59)4  in  1925  in  New  Hampshire, (39) 
Massachusetts/60  and  Rhode  Island  ;(11)  in  1924  in  Virginia  ;(55)  in 
1922  in  Colorado/48, 49)  and  in  1920  in  New  Jersey(10)  show,  in  every 
case,  a  higher  proportion  of  trees  not  of  bearing  age  (counting  trees 
under  10  years  as  not  of  bearing  age)  than  are  reported  for  the  same 
state  at  the  nearest  corresponding  farm  census  year.  This  is  particularly 
true  of  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Virginia,  New  Jersey,  and  Ohio. 
In  the  New  England  states  included  above,  the  number  of  trees  under 
10  years  of  age  amounted  to  from  one-third  to  nearly  one-half  of  the 

4  Superscript  figures  in  parenthesis  indicate  corresponding  numbers  in  litera- 
ture cited  at  the  end  of  this  bulletin. 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS   OF   THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY 


17 


Number  of  Apple  Trees  of  Bearing  Age  and.  Not  of  Bearing  Age  in  the 
United  States  in  Specified  Areas  in  1910,  1920,  and  1925 

Millions  


Trees 
ZOO 

IOO 

To-f-aJ 

ua-hes 

90 
80 
70 
60 

SO 

V 

\ 

V 

AO 

s 

SO 

ZO 

IO 
9 
8 

New   Yor 

k 

T 
4- 

3 
Z 

/ 

111    !!■  ■     1    ■     1 

^ 

0.9 

as 

0.7 
0.<b 

1 
To-ra/  Ba 
Area 

rre/ 

\ 

V. 

'^^» 

Washing- 

t-an 

\ 

\ 
\ 

\ 

J 

\ 

/ 

s 

^ 

? 

Trees  of 
Bearing  Age  - 
— —  Trees 
no-f  af 
Bearing  Age 

^.Tcrf-al  Be 
^  Area 

WC 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 
\ 

Ca/t'-farr 

nia 

Coli-forr 

lia 

v 

f9IO  1920     /92S/9/0  I9ZO     19Z5/9JO  /9ZO     1925 

Fig.  3. — Illustrating  part  of  table  6.  The  number  of  apple  trees  both  of 
bearing  and  not  of  bearing  age  has  been  declining  since  1910.  The  box  area 
showed  some  increase  in  bearing  trees  from  1910  to  1920  but  a  marked  decrease 
in  non-bearing  trees.  From  1920  to  1925  the  number  of  bearing  trees  in  the 
box  area  declined. 


18 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


e.S 

O    03 

© 

OO    »    -H     ■*     «5     N 

CO     OO     -H 

OS    t^ 

•r 

i*<    CM 

CO 

CO 

a  n  s  h  cc 

as  as  00  10 

^  a> 
88,0 

h  »  n  io  w  ^ 

W    115    M 

CO    CO 

CO 

CO    CO 

CM 

CO 

Tt*     CO     ^f     CD     CD 

CM     CM     CM     CM 

b€ 

Dn^-. 

a 

o3 

0) 

o 

^h   cm   co  to  i-H   as 

CO     00     OS 

00    CM 

■<* 

•<*    CO 

t^. 

OS 

to     O     O     CO     CO 

CD     ■"*!     CD     O 

J3 

as   o   co    as   oo   ro 

115    N    tO 

CO     O 

ro 

CO     U5 

OS 

Ol 

to     CO     CD     CO     CO 

to     IO     00     OS 

OJ 

O   co   as  oo   Tt<   as 

i-H     O     if 

CO     CO 

so 

Tf<     Tt< 

»"* 

-^ 

O    115    ■*    IO     U5 

as   10   to   co 

"o 

X 

115    (O    ifl    e    N    ifl 

N    N    » 

CO    CO 

CO 

»-•   cm" 

■* 

rfl 

cm"  os"  0"  V  TjJ" 

CN     CO    CN     « 

o 

3 

co   co   to   «o   io   as 

<N    tN    N 

CO     •** 

co 

t^  0 

10 

to     to     CO     00     -H 

■*t<     OO    to     CO 

"5 

if     CM     ~H     to              CM 

if    00    © 

o  o 

CO 

00    t>- 

CO 

to 

to               CO     CO 

CN     ^     CN    M 

CM 

OS 

to 

to 

CM              CM 

CM     i-l 

<M 

CM    ^h 

01 

to     <M     CO    CO     CO    O 

i-l     CO    CO 

OS     ~i 

O 

O    CO 

as 

•15 

CO     CO     to     i-H      to 

00  as  to  0 

bti 

M     i-l     •*     (N    1C     CO 

as   Tt<   o   cm    oo    »-i 

CO    CO    to 

O0     OS 

co 

■<*<     CM 

115 

00   0   10   10.    as 

if     1(1    N    IO 

o3 

CO     to     if 

O     CO 

co 

00    CO 

0 

r^ 

00    ^^    as   co   *^ 

CO    "5    to    CO 

M 

^h   o   as   cm   io   «-■ 

OO     rt     CO 

~r    co 

os 

~v    ~r 

0" 

■* 

OS     CO     to     CM     CO 

if"   co"  0"  0" 

C 

■^<    CM    io    O    CO    © 

CD     CM     <M 

IO    oo 

a 

-*   O 

t^ 

U5 

1C     -H     OS     CM     CM 

cm   as   i-H   00 

'C 

if    CO    io    if    ^h    to 

•*     ijt     N 

CO    t^ 

'-, 

115     CM 

CO 

CN 

CO     CM     CO     *H 

00    co    O    "* 

c3 

cm"                 rt 

as   ^h   co 

115"  cm" 

■* 

IO    CM 

rt 

OJ 

CO                       f* 

T-*         OO         IO 

« 

a 

M 
03 

s.S 

o  o3 

00    CM    CO    IO     i-i    OO 

©     ^H     00 

■«tl   t^ 

CO 

t^.    CO 

0 

-0 

^H     CO     CM     -H     IO 

00   co   as  -h 

0)  X 

^H     CO     CO     CO     «*     CO 

M    N    M 

CO     CM 

co 

CO    CO 

J 

c3 

w  O 

CD 

N    M    Ol    H     1(5    K) 

~h    CD    CO 

t*    O 

CO 

as  00 

t^ 

CO     CM     00     CM     ^f< 

to     if     Io,     CO 

Xi 

(-, 

i-i    CO    CM    to    to    O 

O0    »15    IO 

OO    CO 

oc 

CM     «5 

00 

IO 

cm   00   00   -^   as 

O0     CD     O     CM 

<U 

cm    as   o   to   co    -<f 

CM    CM    © 

CD      i-H 

00 

CM     CM 

co 

OO     O      to     -H     CD 

if     CM     O     ^h 

*o 

cm   to*  if"  i-T  •-"  co* 

CM     rt     00 

r-T  as 

10 

O     IO 

t«" 

,,' 

1(5    CO    rt    OO    OS 

00    CO    to?   IO 

■^    cm    io    as   to,    CD 

CO     i-l     CM 

•<t<    CM 

CM 

IO     CM 

CO 

CO 

00    CO    O     ^^    1-1 

O     CO    IO     CO 

o 

CM 

o 

3 

*    CN    N    N             CM 

as   oo   co 

0   as 

OO 

O     00 

CO 

l^ 

IO     — 1    ■<*<     CO 

CO     to     00    to 

OS 

to 

£ 

CM              CM* 

CM 

CM 

CM    i-H 

If 

-<f  o  if  o   o   as 

00    CO    f 

O     CO 

CO 

IO    O 

T*< 

as 

OS    to    CO     CM     to 

Ol     CO     N    H 

O    »    Ol    S    rt    to 

OS     N    CO 

CO 

O     CD 

CO 

CO 

IO     CO     ^h     Tj<     IO 
00    CO    CO    O    i-i 

O     CO     to     CO 

n  h   io   oo  h   io 

CO    to    io 

•^   oc 

0 

as  00 

(M 

<i 

~h   as   cm  to 

CO     ^*     CM     00    CO     CM 

co   as   oo 

0  t~-" 

co 

115       I-H 

CO 

CO 

CM     IO     i-H     00     CD 

CO     H     K)     * 

— 1    IO    00    IO 

co   cm   ^h   i-H    t^    as 

co   if   oo 

t^     CM 

h    CM 

as 

■CS 

CO     lO     CO    O     CM 

"C 

»    N    N    N     rt    * 

co   -h   as 

as  rt< 

•— 

CD    CO 

10 

a-. 

-h   cm   as  10 

00    CO    CO    10 

o3 

0) 

cm"            .-T 

a  h  to 

10   co" 

115 

10"  cm' 

n 

"H.S 

0> 
bfl 

v  t- 

o  to   os   co   co   to 

»i5   as   i-i 

as   -tt« 

CO 

0   00 

><f 

co 

io   00   co   co   as 

i-H     i-t     as     I-H 

O   o3 

W    H     h     tN     W     CN 

CN    TH    CO 

CM     CO 

Ol 

CO     IO 

co 

CM     CO     CO     i-i     CO 

co   10   -^   CO 

si 

'H 

i-l                            Tf 

bJD 

Ph«- 

a 

03 

o 

a> 

co    as   co   oo   o    as 

«5     Ol    115 

CO      Tt< 

CM     CO 

CO 

io 

CO    to    CO    CO    CO 

CO     IO     i-H     IO 

X! 

(1 

CM     00     CO     CO     CO     CO 
«H     CM     00     00     IO     00 

~H      1*      00 

■^1   t^ 

0 

l^     CM 

CM 

CO     -<**    CO     1-1     CM 

-H   00   as   cm 

00    CO    IO    0 

a; 

«)    N    rt 

CM    OS 

co 

0  r» 

00 

CO 

00    10    y-i    CO    O 

*o 

s 

K5    N     O)    U5    if    ih 

oo   as  i-i 

00     ^H 

00 

CO    00 

V    0"   to"    CO    O 
CM     CO     CO     i-H     to 

co"  0"  10"  cm" 

CO      CO     CO     to 

ill    O    h    U5    io    n 
O     CM     CM     CO              CM 

CM    i-l    o 

CO     CO 

>* 

115     O 

to 

o 

o 

3 

OO     "5     115 

■^   as 

10 

CM     ■**! 

10 

cr 

CO     T*      OS     1— 1 

CM      CO     Tt<     to 

to 

OS 

to 

CM              CM 

CM     i-l 

N 

CO                      ^ 

CO    CM 

CJ 

bfl 

03 

co  io   as   as   as   if 

CO     CO     CO 

CO     iH 

r^. 

CO     CM 

CO 

n  cn  x  «   h 

CO     CM     CO    00 

i— I     00     CM     to     o     CO 
CO     00     IO     CO     O     to 

O     CM     115 

00     CM 

CM 

-*     CO 

as 

cc 

to       CD      tO       to       T*< 

lO     00     f     ■* 

CN     CD     i* 

00     00 

cc 

co    c; 

CO 

O 

co   00   i-H   co   a- 

to    if    10    OS 

bO 

C 

CO    ©"   CO*   to"   CM    00 

oo  co  o 

Tf<      ^ 

O 

■*   O 

0 

as  if   to   as   10 

as   oo"  Tf"  0" 

N     Tf     0O    (O    IO     ff 

if     115     O 

O      CO 

O 

CO     CO 

oc 

>d 

IO     to     CO     CM     1-1 

CM     00     O     to 

'Ej 

^     CN     H     CO     H     N 

CM    O    O 

U5    t^ 

a 

115      Tf 

CO 

oc 

co   cm   as   as 

if     CM     O     lO 

o3 
A 

C<S     H     H     H 

^H      i-H      0C 

00     "5 

ex 

t>T    CN 

■e 

<*              CM     CD 

rt    N    * 

to 

to 

a 

2 

2 

c 

s 

03 

$ 

* 

to 

a 

i 

to 

Cv 

0) 

03 

<o 

to 

0) 

"5 

at 

g 

"bb    4 
G     C 

W  '5 

±> 
o 

to 

a 

s  * 

A    c 

s ! 

to     0 
J3  t- 

d     4 

(0    *C 

II 

1 

1 

I 

"co 

o 
'43 

1 

1 

& 

a 

V 

•'! 

1 

1 

13 
a 

OJ 

0 

s^ 
c3     C 

a  x 

«  c 

03 

C 

1 

'c 

1 

c 

D     C 

2 

a 

"3 
u 
43 

G 

•5  i 

0   c 

"co   ?s 
9 

s 

'I 
\ 

i 

! 

c- 

X 
$ 

1 

% 

c 

Cv 

1 

c 
1 

C 

"03 

M 
.J 

1  Si 

<!  js 

— 

3 

1 

I 

<- 
> 

0 

'5 

& 

1 

i 

to 

3 

w 

ES 

0 
QQ 

BrL.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY 


19 


c.S 

O   03 

<D 

=: 

OS     t-» 

!>. 

tr. 

—    K 

CO     CM     CN 

i^  »o 

■*  t^  «: 

CO     jv 

i> 

eje 

c 

■c 

»     11)     IO     C" 

00 

bO 

.     0> 

DC 

■<*< 

a 

t 

■^<    »r 

0O     CO     CN 

■<*<   »o 

CN 

— 

cc 

CO 

CM    iH    e>» 

00 

c3 

fe-S 

tc 

d,<~ 

C 

o3 
CD 

o 

"* 

M 

o   oc 

~ 

^r 

■<}<    <N 

X 

O    CO 

<£>■*« 

CM    — 

? 

ex 

s  i  s  s 

3 

ja 

~ 

re    a 

c 

-H      ■* 

m 

CO     CO 

lO     CN 

os    os    — 

co  a 

C 

ec 

t 

CJ 

EC 

a 

o 

«« 

CM     CO 

BC 

co  a 

■<i<  c 

N    »    O 

"* 

ec 

■c 

a 

"o 

.O 

B! 

X 

CO 

JC 

X 

IC     5C 

— 

i-i  r>. 

t»T  ■. 

r-4    l>T    C 

•#  <r 

X 

>«j 

i- 

a 

'  t^.*  ec"  eo  ia 

CO 

£ 

3 

* 

K 

OS 

X 

1"^     CN 

uO 

00     CO 

co   ": 

CO     CM     »- 

00    oc 

«N 

C 

<5| 

»c   oo   t-  e>» 

CO 

s 

~o 

s 

CO 

* 

•H     -<t 

CO 

^   — 

^ 

c 

CM    00    (0    CO 

«M 

OS 

fc 

fe 

MJ 

00 

. 

X 

a 

©   co 

e 

CO   c 

cr 

O    t^ 

g   § 

O     00     ■* 

CM     CO 

a 

ec 

c 

c 

M     N     C"    •> 

s 

bfl 

X 

ec 

uo   ~ 

~ 

:-i 

O    t^ 

ec 

<M     —< 

«   ^  u; 

M    CO 

eo 

~ 

co 

•c: 

ttO    N    19 

(3 

ifl 

CM    -* 

u- 

CN 

00    c 

CO 

00    CN 

T*<       t^ 

OS     CO     iO 

t--     CO 

i> 

■C 

X 

N    *    *     [• 

bfl 

ro 

OD 

1  " 

CN 

3C 

t^     OC 

— 

>o    — 

OS    CO 

38  5 

©    CO 

X 

X 

CO    ©    C*    <* 
t^    -*    t-    M 

t- 

C 

3 

■o 

oo  a 

X 

OS     CO 

OO     S    N 

lO 

'd 

X 

CA 

'fi 

X 

.  w 

c* 

OO     l> 

CO 

OS     CN 

t^  t--. 

CO     lO 

■c 

t> 

N    U5    N    il 

© 

£ 

co 

X 

CM 

CM 

ec 

CM     CO    00     *> 

co" 

0) 

—   oo 

© 

ffl 

o 

8  si 

a 

X 

CO     ■<* 

r__ 

X 

CM     C 

X 

CM     ■"* 

o   — 

s  o  a 

©  •*  — 

o  o  io  n  1a  » 

^f 

bfl 

•    co 

^ 

-*■ 

lO     — 

CM     OB 

CO   >c 

CO 

h   N   ir 

CM 

-H     CO     »H     CO 

CO 

oa 

S-Q 

u 

G 
co 

*«S 

X 

— <  oc 

9 

X 

O    CO 

cr 

CO    k« 

CM     lO 

0O    0O     N 

»o    t-»    t-. 

ir 

00     CM     t^    00     t- 

kO 

Si 

X 

E 

CO    Is* 

o 

os    ^t 

X 

r^   i> 

O    oo 

CM     O0     O- 

-h     OS     t^ 

c 

®     C5    N     ^    M     * 

5 

eg 

"-- 

t~«.    — 

^r 

■*    CO 

ot 

CO    — 

1/5      -<* 

CO     ©     y- 

co  ©   a 

a 

CM     00     CO     OS     t-     CO 

J3 

H 

©    — 

r^ 

CM     CN 

=: 

t^.   ^* 

00     CO 

CS     ■*     t(<    M    N    If 

©~  os   m    o   co    e«»   »h 

to 

S 

3 

a 

5 

o 

CN 

CO     CM 

— 

CM    CO 

CO    Tt<    CO    00    ©    CO    ex 

»C    ©    •*    CM    t- 

at 

© 

o 

00 

-!■ 

O     "^     CM     OO 

-»<     CN 

t^    io    —    v4    © 

i-i 

CM 

e» 

Z: 

z 

—    OO    CO 
00 

s 

a 

m   cc 

ec 

90 

OS    1-* 

CN 

O    t- 

r^ 

00     CO     CN 

N»MHNNMOH« 

IO 

bfl 

CN 

« 

o   co 

a 

BC 

ti    o: 

O    N    « 

aNOMCSNN- 

©     OS    OC     CO    o 

© 

S3 

X 

K 

•o  c 

— 

CO     CO     00     00    CO 

OS    O 

■""OMNNN^S- 

©    CO    «»    to 

bfl 

— ■ 

r^ 

«5    — 

<M 

—i    ■*) 

C!     *     N 

t-~*   00 

CSOONNO»N^iO«N» 
U)MlflN»N(N'*!OrtNae> 

s 

S 

l> 

r^ 

TT 

00    -^ 

co   r^    •*    -h    co 

-T 

K 

•o 

—     O     CM     O 

TJ<      Tf 

©     CO 

r-   co 

t-- 

OS     CO                 M      - 

*\ 

S3 

CO     CO 

—     CM 

t^    CO             -  -      - 

»o 

0) 

M    CO 

pq 

** 

^   bC 

c.S 

r_- 

-,= 

'if    cn 

CO 

X 

**  c 

OS     CM     O- 

P   2 

«     »     M     N     CS     N     C 

M     N    O     N     N     [• 

oo 

o 

O   c3 

t^ 

•*    U5    Ci 

t^      OS 

O0lC©-H©0OU5CN. 

^i 

bO 

eg 

•I 

*H 

•->    ^h    cc    »i    i- 

<  1-1        11 

bfl 
0> 

1-1  o 

l> 

ij 

r-   « 

oc 

t~ 

co  a 

CO 

OS     -^ 

■*     CO 

OCO^liJi^^OOOC 

©  t~  1-1  t- 

9 

_Q 

ec 

CO    cn 

CO 

•"*!     OC 

00    -* 

00    t>- 

««5X»*0«OHM 

CO 

K 

C 

OS 

CN 

CM     CO 

CO     O     u~. 

co   «o 

00003NOODXNS-UN 

oo 

"o 

.fl 

IC 

a 

CN? 

»c 

— 

"  to   o*  co 

o  t-~ 

OOOtcN*«5:®INO'*<eiO 

^ 

- 

EC 

CM 

C 

CM     "*     OS     CO     CM 

O     «     OO     N    - 

l«    oo    — 

S     *    «5     M     18 

CO 

o 

o 

X 

B 

00 

~     tC     ■>*< 

o    — 

CO    uo 

oo   cm   ©   co  cn 

t- 

OS 

fc 

£ 

CM     CM 

CM     — 

t    cq    -    *     ; 

© 

a 

t» 

OS     1* 

D 

IN 

CM      CO 

CS 

co  a 

O     CN 

=2  °S  r 

«5  oe   t^ 

CS     ^    N    M     N    »    W 

© 

bfl 

l> 

5C 

O    w. 

00 

CM     CO 

ur. 

a   ~ 

y->     IT 

"O    *    N 

CMCMCMCO'OCO'^COt-tO 

*•) 

c3 

CM     CC 

D 

OS     ■*» 

CO     -h     CO 

OO    OO 

N     »    N    ■*    1(5     C 

O     *    M     C6     N    »    H 

CO 

bC 

c 

00     — 

oo 

X 

"   O0    00    N     O"    C 

U0     00 

©»Ct^O0CMCMt--^ 

OS     CM     CO     © 

CM 

C 

X 

t^ 

DC 

CO     CO 

CM     >0     O- 

lO     CO 

OS     ©     CM     O0     rf     CO 

©     CM 

CN 

<K 

00 

IC 

00     -*     ^J<     CO 

CO     © 

co   in 

iO 

c 

O    ■«    it    i-i 

00 

03 

-r 

•*   •- 

CM     — 

CO     CM 

»H 

CD 

iH     CO 

u» 

ffl 

CO 

1 

m 

"8 

5  "« 

g 

8 

09 

5 

CB 

.« 

5s 

53 

to 
o 

m 
o 

3 

S 
C 

1 

I 

0 

— 

0 

z 

a 

0 

O 

X 

= 
a 

X 

I 

'5 

■~ 

c 

a 

E 

£ 

t 

>  "E 

a 

P 

0 

j 

— 

DCl 

■ 

= 
o 

-= 
= 

> 

a 

'  I 

t 

i 
I 

c 

a. 

h 

s 

s 

X 

i 

< 

'5 

C 

s 

■ 

I 

a 

Jt 

< 

a 
I 

0 

E 
c 

■f 
a 

> 
a 

1 

S3 

"S 

= 

-2 
a> 
st 

u 

i 
a 
s 

1 

J 

bl 
E 

E 

c 

> 

— 

a 

h 

c 

c 

c 
e 

a 
2 

2 

X 

< 

a 

T 

| 

z 

0 

- 

1 

r 

1 
c 

i 

0 

9 

'5 

Box  area  (total  fi 

Barrel-area  (rest 

Total 

•i 

•i 

s 

c 


Ml 
C5 


20  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION 

total  number  of  trees  included  in  the  surveys.  The  trees  in  the  group 
from  10  to  14  years  of  age  comprise  one-sixth  to  one-fifth  of  the  total 
number  of  trees.  Surveys  in  the  other  states  mentioned  above  have 
slightly  different  age  groupings,  but  they  all  indicate  that  there  were 
marked  increases  in  plantings  of  commercial  orchards  in  the  East 
beginning  about  1910  and  continuing  to  approximately  1925.  This 
is  in  accord  with  general  observations  in  the  East  that  small  home 
orchards  are  going  out  of  production,  and  that  in  the  future  more  and 
more  of  the  eastern  apples  will  come  from  farms  that  are  specializing 
to  a  considerable  extent  in  fruit  production.  The  apple  survey  which 
is  being  made  in  a  number  of  other  apple-producing  states  will,  of 
course,  give  more  definite  information  as  to  the  probable  future  trend. 


TREND  IN  THE  NUMBER  OF  APPLE  TREES  IN  IMPORTANT 
APPLE-PRODUCING  COUNTIES 

Those  counties  (sixty-four  in  number)  in  the  United  States  having 
more  than  200,000  trees  of  bearing  age  in  1925  were  selected  as  more 
nearly  representing  commercial  producing  areas  than  the  totals  by 
states.  Table  7  gives  the  number  of  bearing  and  non-bearing  trees  in 
these  sixty-four  counties  for  1910,  1920,  and  1925.  Practically  all  of 
these  counties  are  in  the  extreme  eastern  and  far-western  states  or 
near  the  Great  Lakes. 

The  number  of  bearing  trees  in  the  twenty  important  apple  counties 
of  the  box  area  increased  from  4,000,000  in  1910  to  11,000,000  in  1920 
and  then  decreased  to  10,000,000  in  1925.  The  total  number  of  bearing 
trees  in  the  box  area  increased  from  12,000,000  in  1910  to  21,000,000 
in  1920  and  then  decreased  to  18,000,000  in  1925. 

In  the  barrel  area  the  total  number  of  bearing  trees  in  the  forty- 
four  important  counties  increased  from  16,600,000  in  1910  to 
17,100,000  in  1920  and  dropped  to  17,000,000  in  1925.  The  total 
number  of  bearing  trees  in  the  barrel  area  decreased  from  139,000,000 
in  1910  to  94,000,000  in  1920,  and  then  to  85,000,000  in  1925.  This 
indicates  that  practically  all  of  the  decrease  in  bearing  trees  in  the 
barrel  area  from  1910  to  1920,  and  again  to  1925,  occurred  in  counties 
other  than  the  forty-four  important  producing  counties.  This  gives 
further  basis  for  the  conclusions  which  logically  follow  a  study  of  the 
surveys  of  trees  in  commercial  orchards  by  age  groups  described  in 
the  previous  section,  that  apple  production  in  the  barrel  area  is 
declining  rapidly  in  the  unimportant  producing  areas.  Hence  it  must 
be  increasing  in  the  forty-four  counties  shown  in  table  7.  Since  the 
number  of  trees  in  these  counties  has  increased  but  slightly,  there  must 
have  been  a  substantial  increase  in  the  yield  per  tree. 


BuL.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY 


21 


TABLE  7 

Apple  Trees  of  Bearing  Age  and  Number  and  Proportion  of  Trees  Not  of 

Bearing  Age  by  Counties  of  Commercial  Importance 

(Thousands  of  trees) 


State  and 
county 


1910 


1920 


New  England  states 
Massachusetts : 

Middlesex 

Worcester 

Middle  Atlantic: 
New  York: 

Chautauqua 

Columbia 

Dutchess 

Erie 

Genesee 

Greene 

Monroe 

Niagara 

Ontario 

Orleans 

Ulster 

Wayne 

New  Jersey: 

Burlington 

Monmouth 

Pennsylvania: 

Adams 

Bedford 

Franklin 

York 

East  north  central : 
Ohio: 

Lawrence 

Illinois: 

Calhoun 

Union 

Michigan: 

Allegan 

Berrien 

Oakland 

Oceana 

Van  Buren 

South  Atlantic: 
Delaware: 

Kent 

Sussex 

Maryland: 

Washington 


Bearing 
age 


Not  of 
bearing  age 


294.0 
331.5 


299.0 
297.5 
303.0 
473.0 
301.0 
274.0 
703.0 
804.0 
369.0 
550.0 
241.0 
812.5 

104.0 
181.0 

166.0 
273.0 
179.0 
239.0 


229.0 

349.0 
203.5 

288.0 
273.5 
286.0 
187.0 
234.0 


183.0 
193.0 


141.0 


Number 


76.0 
64.0 


14.0 
174.0 
103.5 
23.5 
24.0 
114.0 
232.0 
200.5 
106.0 
257.0 
107.0 
379.0 

46.0 
62.0 

149.0 
162.5 
116.0 
139.0 


294.0 

145.0 
164.0 

105.5 
119.0 
64.0 

98.5 
102.5 


195.0 
54.0 


117.0 


Per 

cent 

of 

bearing 


25.8 
19.4 


4.7 
60.1 
34.0 
4.8 
8.0 
41.6 
33.0 
24.9 
28.8 
46.8 
44.5 
46.7 

44.5 
34.2 

89.7 
59.5 
65.0 
58.2 


128.5 

41.6 
81.0 

36.6 
43.6 
22.3 
52.7 
43.6 


106.5 
28.0 


Bearing 
age 


278.0 
267.5 


279.0 
343.0 
285.0 
337.5 
241.0 
263.0 
681.5 
816.5 
349.0 
657.0 
272.0 
907.0 

199.0 
192.0 

254.0 
279.0 
239.0 
234.5 


378.0 

295.0 
192.0 

224.0 
288.0 
257.0 
189.0 
208.5 


954.0 
465.0 


Not  of 
bearing  age 


Number 


302. 


236.5 
185.0 


30.0 

199.0 

157.0 

55.0 

16.0 

98.0 

243.0 

232.0 

102.5 

205.0 

203.0 

377.0 

228.5 
98.5 

280.0 

60.0 

101.5 

142.0 


278.0 

385.0 
129.0 

149.0 
220.0 
122.0 
179.0 
144.0 


237.0 
160.0 


104.0 


Per 

cent 

of 

bearing 


85.1 

69.2 


10.9 
58.1 
55.1 
16.4 
6.6 
37.2 
35.6 
28.5 
29.3 
31.2 
74.7 
41.6 

114.9 
51.3 

110.2 

21.4 
42.2 
60.5 


73.7 

130.6 
67.2 

66.4 

76.6 
47.6 
41.7 
68.9 


24.8 
34.4 


34.3 


1925 


Bearing 


366.0 
322.0 


216.0 
406.0 
281.0 
266.5 
209.0 
308.0 
737.0 
937.0 
331.5 
730.5 
302.0 
,046.5 

337  0 
256.0 

443  5 

263.0 
266.0 
297.5 


415.0 

404.0 
204.0 

262.0 
340.5 
226.0 
236.0 
235.5 


472.0 
293.0 


368.5 


Not  of 
bearing  age 


Number 


247.0 
174.0 


29.0 

193.0 

145  0 

40.0 

14.0 

64.0 

142.5 

222  0 

65.0 

144  0 

207.0 

244.0 

226.0 
72.5 

154.0 
36.0 
120.0 
105.0 


154.0 

374.0 
239.0 

130.0 
350.0 
102.0 
75.5 
192.5 


136.0 
88.0 

155.0 


Per 

cent of 
bear- 


67.5 
54.0 


13.5 
47.5 
51.5 
15.1 
6.8 
20.9 
19.5 
23.7 
19.5 
19.8 
68.5 
23.3 

67.1 
28.3 

34.7 
13.5 
45.3 
35.4 


37.1 

92.5 
117.1 

49.7 
102.8 
45.2 
31.9 
81.7 


28.8 
30.1 


42.2 


22 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  7— (Continued) 


State  and 
county 


1910 


Bearing 
age 


Not  of 
bearing  age 


Number 


Per 

cent 

of 

bearing 


1920 


Bearing 
age 


Not  of 
bearing  age 


Number 


Per 

cent 

of 

bearing 


1925 


Bearing 
age 


Not  of 
bearing  age 


Number 


South  Atlantic  stat 
Virginia: 

Albemarle 

Augusta 

Carroll 

Frederick 

Nelson 

Patrick 

Rockingham. 

Shenandoah.. 
West  Virginia: 

Berkeley 

Hampshire 

North  Carolina 

Wilkes 

South  central  states : 
Arkansas: 

Benton 

Washington 

Far  western  states 
Montana: 

Ravalli 

Idaho: 

Canyon 

Payette  —  part 

Twin  Falls 

Colorado: 


Washington: 

Benton 

Chelan 

Douglas 

Klickitat 

Okanogan 

Spokane 

Yakima 

Oregon : 

Hood  River 

Jackson 

Wasco 

California: 

Monterey 

San  Bernardino 

Santa  Clara 

Santa  Cruz 

Sonoma 


-Contin 

366.0 
354.0 
191.0 
273.0 
199.0 
243.5 
241.0 
181.0 

166.0 
138.0 

275.0 


2,466.0 
1,794.0 


356.0 

154.0 
of  Canyo 
7.0 

347.0 

19.0 

422.0 

32.0 

50  5 

33.0 

418.5 

386.5 

195.5 
126.0 
46.0 

290.0 

55.0 

103.0 

647.0 

387.0 


ued 


Total — 64  counties- 
Counties  in  box  area 
Barrel  area 


20,724  0 
4,075  0 


16,649  0 


95. 
202. 
112. 
285. 

47. 
219.0 
125.0 
151.0 

197.0 
210.0 

67.0 


797.0 
778.0 


841.0 


483.0 
n  until  19 
250.0 

738.0 

268.0 
1,099.0 
278.0 
173.0 
348.0 
346.0 
1,145.0 

405.0 
491.5 
124.0 

86.0 

51.0 

33.0 

150.0 

305.0 


14,901  0 
7,613  0 


7,288  0 


26.0 
57.0 
58.5 
104.5 
23.6 
90.3 
52.0 
83.5 

119.0 
152.0 

24.4 


32.8 
43.5 


236.5 


313.0 

17 

35.6 


212.5 

141.0 

258.5 
920.0 
342.0 
1054.0 
83.0 
296.0 

208.0 
391.0 
270.0 

29.6 
93.0 
32.1 
23.2 
79.0 


71  9 
186  7 


43  8 


377.0 
554.0 
239.0 
567.0 
204.0 
300.0 
247.0 
254.5 

483.0 
401.0 

187.0 


1,250.0 
925.0 


726.0 

185.0 
314.0 
218.0 

478.0 

395.0 

1,502.0 

387.0 

237.0 

563.0 

1,119.0 

1,908.0 

676.0 
230.0 
278.0 

208.0 
264.0 
92.0 
666.0 
617.0 


28,203  5 
11,088  0 


271.0 
195.0 
60.0 
190.0 
178.0 
120.0 
48.0 
91.5 

146.5 

87.0 

93.5 


124.0 
98.0 


33.5 

11.0 

4.0 

20.0 

40.0 

26.0 
170.0 
31.5 
28.0 
45.0 
89.0 
145.0 

86.0 
14.0 
92.0 

16.0 
89.0 
26.0 
98.0 
401  0 


8,426  0 
1,424  0 


72.0 
35.2 
25.1 
33.5 
87.0 
40.1 
19.4 
36.0 

30.3 
21.8 

50.1 


10.0 
10.6 


6.1 
1.1 

9.1 

14.4 

6.5 
11.3 
8.1 
11.7 
8.1 
8.0 
7.6 

12.8 
10.6 
33.2 

7.5 
33.7 
27.8 
14.7 
65  0 


17,115  0      7,001  0 


29  9 
12.9 


499.5 
542.0 
210.0 
646.0 
283.0 
400.0 
286.0 
284.0 

568.0 
377.5 

242  0 


876.0 
620.0 


510.0 

223.0 
261.0 
202.0 

243.0 

366.0 
1,277.0 
360.0 
241.0 
432.0 
753.5 
1,893.0 


624.0 
248.0 
225.0 

200.0 
351.0 
202.0 
824.0 
839.0 


27.275  5 

10.276  0 


40  9   16,999  0 


176.0 
88.5 
53.5 
210.0 
146.0 
77.0 
45.0 
44  0 

213.0 
42.0 

78.0 


438.0 
343.0 


11.0 

26.0 
17.0 
10.0 

5.0 

28.5 
183.5 

55.5 

17.0 
.166.5 

30.0 
387.0 

68.0 
8.0 
5.0 

41.0 

15.0 

14.0 

116.0 

306.0 


7,943  0 
1,509  0 


6  434  0 


Data  for  1910  from  unpublished  data  of  the  Census  Bureau;  for  1920  from 
14th  Census  of  the  United  States  6  (parts  1  and  2);  for  1925  from  United 
States  Census  of  Agriculture,  1925,  by  states. 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS   OF   THE  APPLE   INDUSTRY 


23 


SHIPMENTS  OF  FRESH  APPLES  BY  YEARS 

The  carlot  shipments  of  fresh  apples  in  the  United  States  vary 
considerably  from  year  to  year  according  to  the  size  of  the  crop,  and 
show  a  general  trend  upward  from  1919  to  1926  (see  table  8  and 
figure  4).  A  part  of  this  trend  upward  may  be  due  to  incomplete 
reports  during  the  first  few  years  that  statistics  on  fruit  shipments 
were  obtained.     California  shipments  increased  rather  steadily  up  to 

TABLE  8 


Crop  year 
(beginning  June) 

California 

Box  area 

Barrel  area 

Total 
(box  and  barrel) 

1919 

4,076 
4,413 
5,062 
4,961 
6,505 
4,891 
2,531 
5,082 

45,407 
37,277 
56,871 
46,290 
63,005 
41,573 
55,302 
54,369 

41,341 
78,840 
32,688 
67,671 
75,197 
62,271 
72,602 
79,604 

86,748 

1920 

116,117 

1921 

89,559 

1922 

113,961 

1923 

138,202 

1924 

103,844 

1925 

127,904 

1926 

133,973* 

*  Subject  to  revision. 

Data  from  U.  S.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Fruits  and  Vegetables  Division,  revised 
data  of  October,  1927.   Unpublished. 

1923,  declined  during  the  next  two  years,  and  came  up  to  the  1921 
figure  in  1926.  The  1925  crop  was  very  light.  This  was  entirely  due 
to  unfavorable  climatic  conditions.  It  is  probable  that  the  break  in 
shipments  in  California  during  1924  and  1925  is  only  temporary,  and 
that  the  long-time  trend  will  be  upward.  This  conclusion  is  further 
born  out  by  the  trend  in  apple  trees  of  bearing  age  in  California 
shown  in  figure  3,  which  show  an  upward  trend  from  1910  to  1925. 

The  box  area,  which  comprises  the  Far-western  states,  shows  ship- 
ments of  45,407  carlots  for  the  year  beginning  June,  1919,  and  54,369 
carlots  for  the  year  beginning  June,  1926.  The  average  of  the  first 
two  years  of  shipments — 41,342  carlots — compared  with  that  of  the 
last  two  years — 54,836  carlots — gives  a  more  accurate  picture  of  the 
increase  in  reported  shipments. 

The  barrel  area,  which  includes  the  rest  of  the  United  States,  shows 
average  shipments  of  60,091  carlots  for  the  first  two  years  and  76,103 
carlots  for  the  last  two  years.  This  seems  like  a  large  increase  for 
such  a  short  period  and  leads  one  to  question  the  completeness  of  the 
returns  on  carlot  shipments  during  the  first  few  years  that  they  were 
reported. 


24 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Fresh  Apple  Shipments  in  the  United  States,  1919-1926 
Thousands 
of  Cars 

ZOO 


/oo 
eo 

80 
70 

eo 
so 

40 
so 


20 


7oA 

7/x* 

&&/re/  drea^ 

»^* 

/ 

i 

^**^ 

U 

\ 

/ 

*" 

-** 

/ 

V 

~A 

\ 

y 

c 

A 

V 

r 

\ 

1 

^s 

/  \ 

/ 

Bo. 

xAn 

*a' 

/o 

/9/9      20        2/         22       23       £4       2S      /926 

Fig.  4. — Illustrating  table  8.  The  reported  carlot  shipments  of  apples  increased 
rapidly  during  the  first  few  years  in  which  these  data  were  obtained.  During 
the  last  four  or  five  years  the  shipments  have  reached  a  more  nearly  constant 
level. 


SHIPMENT  OF  FRESH  APPLES  DURING  THE  SUMMER   MONTHS 

California  is  an  important  producer  and  shipper  of  early  apples 
(Gravensteins),  which  are  produced  mainly  in  Sonoma  County.  The 
production  of  Gravenstein  apples  in  Sonoma  County  has  been  increas- 
ing rapidly  since  1912,  while  the  price  (deflated)  has  been  tending 
downward.  The  shipments  for  June,  July,  and  August  from  1917  to 
1926  for  California,  the  whole  box  area,  and  the  barrel  area  are  shown 
in  table  9  and  figure  5.  During  June,  apple  shipments  from  Cali- 
fornia were  comparatively  unimportant,  although  there  has  been  some 
increase  during  the  last  four  years.  Shipments  from  the  box  area  in 
general  and  from  the  barrel  area  increased  considerably  from  1917  to 


Bul.  445  J 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS   OF   THE  APPLE   INDUSTRY 


25 


1926,  especially  the  shipments  of  the  crop  of  the  previous  year,  as 
shown  in  table  9.  Thus  in  the  barrel  area  47  carlots  of  the  1917  crop 
were  shipped  in  June,  1918,  and  in  June,  1926,  380  carlots  of  the  1925 
crop  were  shipped. 

TABLE  9 

Carlot  Shipments  of  Fkesh  Apples  by  Areas  for  June,  July,  and  August, 

1917-1926 

June  shipments 


Year  beginning 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

California: 

6 

2 

5 
5 

6 
5 

13 
9 

2 
1 

66 
30 

18 
30 

53 
9 

92 

28 

Total 

8 

6 
4 

10 

5 
23 

11 

6 
24 

22 

13 

210 

3 

2* 
120* 

96 

66* 

58 

48 

33* 
166* 

62 

89* 
289* 

120 

Box  area: 

New  crop 

Old  crop 

18 

106 
572 

Total 

18 

10 

28 

30 

223 

122 

124 

199 

378 

678 

Barrel  area: 

New  crop 

36 

172 
47 

97 
66 

157 
75 

64 

149 

872* 
123* 

87* 
298* 

172* 
541* 

344* 
220* 

146 
380 

Total 

36 

219 

163 

232 

213 

995 

385 

713 

564 

526 

July  shipments 


California  ... 

Box  area 

Barrel  area. 


112 

66 

273 

244 

352 

220 

1,290 

729 

341 

233 

91 

313 

279 

398 

254 

1,375 

761 

459 

518 

1,149 

1,034 

1,576 

809 

2,338 

1,985 

1,601 

2,436 

1,480 
1,557 
2,108 


August  shipments 


California... 

Box  area 

Barrel  area 


173 

468 

441 

723 

690 

998 

984 

645 

155 

552 

657 

808 

846 

1,006 

1,114 

1,383 

961 

768 

756 

1,702 

1,904 

3,015 

2,378 

3,809 

2,739 

2,165 

3,562 

591 
1,324 
1,807 


*  Box  area  calculated  by  adding  California  and  Washington  (only  western  states  given)  and  hall  of 
cars  included  in  "others,"  in  both  "new  crop"  and  "old  crop."  Barrel  area  calculated  by  subtracting 
the  box  area  "new  crop"  and  box  area  "old  crop,"  respectively,  from  the  grand  totals  of  box  and  barrel 
areas  as  given  in  the  source. 

Data  for  1917  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook  1923:734;  for  1918-1922  from 
U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Statis.  Bul.  7:2-5;  for  1923-1926  from  Monthly  Supplement  of 
Crops  and  Markets  3(8,  9,  10).    1926. 


During  the  month  of  July,  California  shipped  nearly  all  of  the 
apples  that  are  shipped  from  the  box  area.  July  shipments  from 
California  in  1917  and  1918  were  112  and  66  carlots,  respectively,  and 
during  1925  and  1926  they  were  341  and  1,480  carlots,  respectively. 
For  the  same  years  the  July  shipments  from  the  barrel  area  were  518, 
1,149,  2,436,  and  2,108  carlots,  respectively. 


26 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Fresh  Apple  Shipments  from  Barrel  and  Box  Areas  and  from  California 
for  June,  July,  and  August,  1917-1926 


1917       IS 

Pig.  5. — Illustrating  table  9.  Shipments  of  apples  in  June,  July,  and  August 
from  California  and  from  other  parts  of  the  United  States  have  increased  con- 
sider;! hi y  since  1917.  This  has  meant  increased  competition  for  Gravenstein 
apple  producers. 


BUL.  445]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS   OF   THE  APPLE   INDUSTRY  27 

Shipments  from  California  during  August  made  up  from  one-half 
to  three-fourths  of  the  total  shipments  from  the  box  area.  The  increase 
in  shipments  for  this  month  from  1917  to  1926  was  less  rapid  than 
the  increase  which  took  place  during  July.  The  shipments  from  the 
barrel  area  during  August  were  fairly  heavy.  In  1917,  when  they 
were  first  recorded,  August  shipments  amounted  to  756  carlots;  in 
1922  they  reached  a  peak  of  3,809  carlots,  and  dropped  to  1,807  carlots 
in  1926. 

It  is  evident  from  table  9  and  figure  5  that  Gravenstein  apples  are 
meeting  increasing  competition  from  two  sources :  first,  the  late  apples 
from  the  previous  year,  which  show  a  considerable  increase  in  ship- 
ments in  June ;  and  second,  the  rapid  increase  in  shipments  of  early 
apples  from  the  rest  of  the  box  area  and  from  the  barrel  area  in  July 
and  August. 


SEASONAL    MOVEMENTS    OF    FRESH    APPLES    COMPARED    WITH 
OTHER    FRESH    FRUITS 

The  apple  shipments  by  months  do  not  indicate  the  amounts  going 
into  consumption,  for  a  large  part  of  the  crop  is  shipped  from  the 
point  of  production  to  storage  places  in  the  cities  from  which  it  is 
taken  later  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  consumers.  Even  the  amounts 
available  for  consumption  are  only  roughly  proportional  to  the  carlot 
shipments,  since  certain  varieties  need  to  be  kept  in  storage  for  some 
time  before  they  are  fit  to  be  consumed.  The  length  of  time  required 
to  mellow  them  for  consumption  depends  to  a  considerable  extent 
upon  the  storage  temperature. 

The  peak  of  apple  shipments  for  1923  and  1924,  as  shown  in  table 
10  and  figure  6,  came  in  October  with  44,871  carlots.  The  next  highest 
peak  of  shipments  came  in  November  with  23,401  carlots.  September 
was  third  with  15,665  carlots.  Grape  shipments  were  also  high  in 
October  with  28,056  carlots.  During  September,  grape  shipments 
amounted  to  24,854  carlots  or  more  than  9,000  carlots  higher  than 
apple  shipments  for  that  month.  The  fact  that  high  shipments  of 
apples  and  grapes  occurred  during  September  and  October,  of  course, 
does  not  indicate  as  serious  competition  as  if  either  or  both  fruits  had 
to  be  consumed  as  shipped.  A  large  part  of  the  grapes  is  juice  stock, 
which  is  largely  stored  for  future  consumption,  and  most  of  the 
apples  go  into  cold  storage.  However,  an  abundance  of  apples  and 
grapes  are  available  for  consumption  during  September,  October,  and 
November. 


28 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


3 

o 
H 

125,241 

67,595 

39,363 

37,527 

26,842 

18,365 

76,720 

11,399 

19,607 

5,390 

1,860 

17,297 

2  273 

Q 

o    OS 
CO    IN 
IN     ■«*< 

CO     -H     00 
t-~    ©    i-H 
i-<    CO    t- 

OS                1-T 

o   as 

Is 

~H    00 
O     OS 
Tf    CO 

CO    CO 
IN 

115    i«    Ol 

OS     r-H      U0 

O    O    co 

OS                 CM 

•*    CO 

cm   as 

s- 

o 
o 

o 

i-i   co  ©   >*   in 

(^    ifll     OS    •«*<     <M 
00    O             ©IN 

Tt<     00                i-H 

«#    IN 

■*    W3    tO    N    US    'H 
^H     O     ^H     O0     CO     IN 

oo    co    as   in   co   O 

IN              !-"                      CO 

el 

DC 

ifl    ■*     IN     M    IO 
(D     lO    lO    N     N 

(O    OO    IN     N    1C 

Ifl     f"    W     ffl"    IN 

W     IN    N    H     00     H 
<N     CO     CO     •>*■<**     CO 
N    IO    N    Ol    O    0O 

CN                     «-i             -"f 

05 

*<5 

^1    (D    N     »     N 
fN     i-H     IN     CO     OS 

<C    (O     IO     N    N 

M    IO    O!    H     <t 

«3    -H    00    t-H    t—    IN    CO 

113     N    M    MO    N    N 
00    O     l- 1     CO     CO    O     IN 

<N    »-i             i-H             »<3 

-*<NOOCOI^t©OOOas<N''*<0~H 

>»            tONOOOONH^NONOlWlfl 
^             OOOSCOt^»-llOlOO<Nl>'^-'J<t>- 

h-j             IN              0*(Mt>T             CO    i— 1                                CO 

CN    i— 1 

3 

HOfflO>»MfflHTllNN*M 
HNOONNTjlWiOfflN             rt    cq 
I-              CO     i— 1     ©     IN     1*3     «>•     "3     OS              i-HOO 

CO    IN    i-H    iO    «3    i-H 

CO 
1T3 
OS 

i— 1     CO     OS    CO     OS    ©     lO     "3 
■^               O     CO     CM     !>.     y-l 

»-H     O     t-     i-H     IN 

CO 

00 
CO 

CO* 

CO 

"1     "*     CO     CO 
O     (*-     IN     IC 

K)    l<3     IN    h 

H     »    rt     N 

lO 

.4 
u 

CO 

CO 
OS 

"5 

co   as   r-   in 

00     CO     CO     lO 
IN     00     00     00 

00             IN 

CO 

•^  ss 
*2 

IN 

a    CO    N    115 
<N     I—     O     O 

M    113    N     t 

O0              IN 

CO 

>> 

s- 

03 
3 

93 

CO 

CO 

oo 

»    N    M    N 
■O    O    -H    ■* 

rt     (O     N    115 

r^          in 

"3 
IN 

'3 

I 

I 

c 

< 

C 

a 

C 

a 
E 

1     0. 

K 

,£ 

e 
a 

Jb 

Pi 

P 

3 

c 

S 

u 

a 
'£ 

t 
a 

X 

F. 
X 

or 

a 

b 
E 
a 
E 

c 

£ 
a 

8 

c 

or 

a 

c 

3 
C 

na 

B 

«" 

2 

J 

a 

C 

1 

T 
S 

§ 

1 

o- 

a 

I 

a 

S3 
0Q 


2 


S 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  APPLE   INDUSTRY 


29 


Ap> 

z>/es 

Monthly  Shipments  of  Certain  Fresh  Fruits  in  the  United  States, 

Thousands  AVERAGE   OF    1923-1924 


40 

JO 

zo 

10 

O 
30 

ZO 

10 

O 

20 

10 

o 

to 

o 

10 
0 
10 


\ 

Grc 

ipes 

/ 

^ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

f 

\ 

Wa+ermelons 

A 

k 

/ 

\ 

k 

f 

s 

-^. 

Peach&s 

Carrha/oup&s 

Sf'no  wherries 

IO 

n    1 

s 

0 

Jan.  Feb.  Mar.  Apr.  May  Jun&  July  Aug.  Sep-h  Oct.  Nov.  Dec. 
Fig.  6. — Illustrating  table  10.  Annual  shipment  data  show  that  apples  lead 
all  fruits  by  a  considerable  margin.  Oranges  are  second  in  numbers  of  cars 
shipped  and  grapes  are  a  close  third.  Apples  and  grapes  have  their  peaks  of 
shipments  in  October,  but  both  can  be  stored.  The  perishable  fruits  like  water- 
melons, peaches,  cantaloupes,  and  strawberries  have  their  peaks  of  shipments 
three  to  five  months  earlier  than  the  peak  of  apple  shipments. 


30 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Watermelons,  most  of  the  peaches,  cantaloupes,  and  strawberries 
are  shipped  when  apple  shipments  are  relatively  low,  and  hence  seri- 
ously compete  with  the  latter  only  during  the  last  month  or  two  of  the 
apple-storage  season,  and  with  the  early  apples  like  Gravensteins. 
Orange  shipments  run  fairly  uniformly  from  November  to  May.  The 
peak  of  shipments  (9,173  carlots)  comes  in  December.  The  other 
fruits  such  as  lemons,  grapefruit,  plums  and  prunes,  mixed  melons, 
pears,  and  cherries  shown  in  table  10  have  comparatively  light 
shipments  even  during  the  peak  months. 


APPLE    STORAGE 

Considerable  quantities  of  apples  have  always  been  stored  in  farm 
cellars  and  in  other  air-cooled  storage  places.  During  recent  years 
cold-storage  space  has  increased  rapidly,  which  has  made  it  possible 


TABLE  11 

Apple  Cold-Storage  Holdings  in  the  United  States,  1915-1926 

(Thousands  of  bushels) 


Crop  year 

Oct.  1 

Nov.  1 

Dec.  1 

Jan.  1 

Feb.  1 

March  1 

Apr.  1 

May  1 

June  1 

1915-16 

11,067 

16,323 

14,439 

12,708 

9,726 

5,952 

3,105 

912 

1916-17 

9,780 

13,476 
14,067 

12,396 

10,155 

7,326 

4,635 

2,424 

795 

1917-18 

9,888 

13,797 

11,871 

8,490 

5,349 

2,034 

477 

1918-19 

11,256 

14,784 

12,882 

| 9,315 
13,572 

5,316 

2,868 

1,140 

375 

1919-20 

2,913 

13,569 

17,769 

16,587 

9,486 

5,097 

2,418 

639 

1920-21 

1,632 

13,425 

20,361 

19,158 

15,315 

10,950 

6,630 

3,357 

1,335 

1921-22 

2,376 

10,929 

17,217 

16,287 

12,939 

9,270 

5,790 

2,832 

942 

1922-23 

4,356 

16,563 

20,229 

19,443 

16,128 

11,631 

6,942 

3,210 

831 

1923-24 

2,781 

20,742 

30,297 

29,088 

23,529 

17,895 

11,613 

6,240 

2,304 

1924-25 

2,460 

17,274 

22,419 

20,019 

15,699 

11,283 

6,864 

3,429 

1,197 

1925-26 

4,266 

22,467 

28,194 

25,536 

21,153 

15,900 

9,942 

4,954 

1,875 

1926-27 

3,612 

21,321 

31,458 

28,068 

21,905 

15,342 

9,423 

4,794 

1,605 

Data  for  Nov.  1915-Dec.  1925  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook  1925:865;  for 
Jan.  1926-April  1927  from  monthly  issues  of  Crops  and  Markets.  The  sources 
give  holdings  in  barrels.  These  figures  were  converted  to  bushels  by  multiplying 
by  three. 

to  keep  apples  as  well  as  other  fruits  and  vegetables  in  good  condition 
for  a  much  longer  period  than  was  possible  with  the  earlier  storage 
facilities.  The  cold-storage  space  in  the  United  States  increased  from 
200,000,000  cubic  feet  in  1914  to  more  than  600,000,000  cubic  feet  in 
1925.(32) 

The  quantities  of  apples  held  in  cold  storage  on  the  first  of  each 
month  from  October  to  June  in  the  years  1915  to  1926  are  shown  in 
table  11  and  for  the  first  of  December,  February,  and  April  of  these 
years  in  figure  7.     The  peak  of  cold-storage  holdings  of  apples  came 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY 


31 


Cold-Storage  Holding  of  Apples  in  the  United  States  on  December  1, 
February  1,  and  April  1,  1915-16  to  1926-27 


Fig.  7. — Illustrating  part  of  table  11.  Cold-storage  holdings  of  apples  are  at 
their  peak  in  December  of  each  year.  The  quantities  in  cold  storage  during  the 
different  months  practically  doubled  from  1915  to  1925,  and  seem  to  be  still 
trending  upward. 


32 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 


consistently  on  the  first  of  December  of  each  year,  after  which  there 
was  a  more  or  less  regular  decline  until  June  1.  The  quantity  held 
in  storage  on  December  1,  1925,  was  practically  double  the  quantity 
stored  at  the  same  date  in  1915  and  1916.  The  quantities  in  cold 
storage  of  December  1  of  1925  and  1926  were  28,194,000  and 
31,458,000  bushels  respectively,  or  almost  30  per  cent  of  the  United 
States  commercial  crop  for  the  same  years. 


THE   DISTRIBUTION   AND   EXTENT  OF  THE   APPLE-DRYING 
INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 

In  most  parts  of  the  United  States,  apple  drying  is  a  means  of 
making  use  of  some  of  the  inferior  grades  of  apples,  and  is  on  a 
strictly  by-product  basis.  The  proportion  of  the  total  crop  that  was 
dried  during  the  five  census  years  shown  in  table  12  varies  from 

TABLE  12 
Production  of  Dried  Apples  in  the  United  States  by  Areas  for  Various  Years 


In  thousands  of  pounds 

In  thousands  of  bushels 

Year 

California 

New  York 

All  other 
states 

Total 
United 
States 

Equiva- 
lent 
in  fresh 
apples 

Total  fresh 

produced  in 

United 

States 

Per  cent 
dried 

of  total 
crop 

1899 

5,900 

6,000 

25,000 

14,000 

19,000 

21,543 

33,652 

13,524 

3,070 

2,506 

8,583 
4,056 
17,623 
3,303 
3,800 

36,026 
43,708 
56,147 
20,373 
25,306 

5,476 
6,644 
8,534 
3,907 
3,847 

175,397 
146,122 
142,086 
99,002 
202,842 

3.12 

1909 

4.55 

1919 

6  01 

1921 

3.95 

1923 

1.90 

Data  for  years  1899,  1909,  1919,  and  1921  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook 
1925:604;  for  1923  from  Biennial  Census  of  Manufactures  1923:73.  Data  for 
California  are  from  Kaufman,  E.  E.  California  crop  report  for  1926.  California 
Dept.  Agr.  Spec.  Pub.  74:22.  Pounds  dried  converted  to  bushels  of  fresh  by 
multiplying  by  0.152  (7.3  -r-  48). 

1.90  per  cent  to  6.01  per  cent.  The  tendency  for  the  country  as  a 
whole  seems  to  be  towards  decreasing  the  total  amount  as  well  as  the 
proportion  of  the  crop  that  is  dried.  In  California  the  drying  of 
apples  increased  greatly  from  1899  to  1919.  Later  records  of  the 
State  Department  of  Agriculture  indicate  that  in  1922,  1924,  and 
1926  the  production  of  dried  apples  in  this  state  almost  equaled  the 
high  record  of  1919.  Tn  Sonoma  County  sometimes  50  per  cent  of  the 
crop  is  dried,  but  in  the  state  as  a  whole  approximately  25  per  cent 
of  the  crop  is  usually  dried. 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS   OF   THE  APPLE   INDUSTRY 


33 


New  York  and  California  together  produce  more  than  one-half  of 
the  United  States  total  of  dried  apples.  Since  1909  the  quantity 
dried  in  New  York  has  decreased,  but  the  trend  of  California 
production  of  dried  apples  has  been  upward. 

Less  than  one-half  of  the  dried  apples  produced  in  the  United 
States  are  consumed  here.  Most  of  them  are  exported  to  Europe. 
The  United  Kingdom,  Germany,  Netherlands,  and  Sweden  import  the 
bulk  of  our  dried-apple  exports. 


THE    DISTRIBUTION    AND    EXTENT   OF   THE    APPLE-CANNING 
INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 

The  commercial  canning  of  many  fruits  and  vegetables  which 
cannot  long  be  stored  as  fresh  fruit  has  increased  very  rapidly  since 
1900.     Apples,  which  can  be  stored  successfully,  show  some  increase 


TABLE  13 

Production  of  Canned  Apples  in  the  United  States  by  States  for 
Various  Years.     (In  cases) 


1909 

1919 

1921 

1923 

1925 

48,062 
132,575 

75,540 

429,180 

8,557 

149,398 

213,230 
134,245 
253,993 
482,140 
230,555 
183,827 
43,252 
94,075 
313,034 
487,363 

15,699 

California* 

98,500 
301,855 
601,237 
279,751 
100,426 
27,383 
18,600 
430,969 
380,707 

22,697 
155,708 
593,724 
365,308 
248,474 

Maine 

141,208 

769,379 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Utah 

378,616 

364,294 

23,345 

Virginia 

Washington 

Other  states 

11,870 
22,533 

392,892 

50,311 
836,195 
442,136 

937,838 
836,797 

Total  U.  S 

1,270,607 

2,435,714 

2,239,428 

2,714,553 

3,467,176 

Total  U.  S.  reduced  to  fresh 
bushels ! 

Per  cent  of  total  crop 

1,470,610 
1.0 

2,819,113 
2.0 

2,591,931 
2.6 

3,141,843 
1.6 

4,012,935 
2.3 

*  Data  for  California  from  California  crop  reports  1926,  Spec.  Pub.  74:23. 
Data  for  other  states  for  1909,  1919;  and  1921  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook 
1925:609;  for  1923  from  Biennial  Census  of  Manufacturers  1923:72;  for  1925 
from  Census  report  for  1925  on  canned  foods.  National  Canners  Association  Bul. 
102A:5.   April,  1927.     Cases  converted  to  bushels  by  dividing  by  0.864. 

in  amounts  canned,  but  not  nearly  as  great  proportional  increases  as 
have  occured  with  the  more  perishable  fruits.  Table  13  shows  the 
distribution  and  extent  of  apple  canning  for  the  five  years  1909,  1919, 
1921,  1923,  and  1925.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  a  comparatively 
small  proportion  of  the  total  apple  crop  is  usually  canned,  the  pro- 
portion varying  from  1.0  per  cent  in  1909  to  2.6  per  cent  in  1921. 


34 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


The  quantity  canned  in  1921,  however,  was  only  2,239,428  cases 
compared  with  2,714,553  cases  in  1923  and  3,467,176  cases  in  1925. 

In  California  the  number  of  cases  of  apples  that  have  been  canned 
has  declined  since  the  war.  During  1919  the  number  of  cases  packed 
in  California  amounted  to  134,245,  which  is  approximately  5.5  per 
cent  of  the  total  pack  for  the  United  States.  In  1923,  California 
canned  only  0.8  per  cent  of  the  total  United  States  pack. 

New  York  and  Washington  are  the  most  important  states  in  apple 
canning,  New  York  being  in  the  lead  through  1921  with  Washington 
taking  the  lead  since  that  time.  These  two  states  together  can  approxi- 
mately one-half  of  the  total  United  States  pack.  Oregon  and 
Pennsylvania  are  also  relatively  important  in  apple  canning. 


IMPORTANT   APPLE    MARKETS    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES 

The  distribution  of  apples  from  the  important  producing  states 
and  the  barrel  and  box  areas  is  shown  fairly  well  by  the  data  on 
carlot  unloads  in  thirty-six  important  cities  by  states  of  origin.  These 
data  are  given  in  table  14  for  the  calendar  year  1926  and  hence  are 
made  up  of  approximately  one-fifth  from  the  1925  crop  and  four-fifths 
from  the  1926  crop.     Figure  8  shows  graphically  the  carlot  unloads 


Carlot  Unloads  of  Apples  in  the  Principal  Cities,  1926 


L^k    Unloads    Originating    from  Box 

Area   outside   California 
fc^.   Unloads  Originating  from  Barrel  Area 

Unloads  Originating  from    California 

Fig.  8. — California  supplies  a  relatively  small  proportion  of  the  apples  at 
markets  outside  of  the  state,  but  it  supplies  more  than  one-half  of  the  unloads 
in  San  Francisco  and  I.<os  Angeles.  Most  of  the  markets  east  of  the  Mississippi 
River  obtain  the  bulk  of  their  apples  from  the  barrel  area.  Most  of  those  west 
of  the  Mississippi  River  obtain  the  bulk  of  their  apples  from  the  box  area. 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS   OF   THE  APPLE   INDUSTRY 


35 


o 

p 

3 

1 

S" 

d 

r 

x 

3 

X 

• 

X 

0 
3 

? 

"5 

X 

- 

?r 

2 

X 

t 

X 

— < 

Philadelphia 
Pittsburgh... 
Portland,  Or 

Indianapolis 
Kansas  City. 
Los  Angeles.. 

Louisville 

Memphis 

Milwaukee..., 
Minneapolis. 

Newark 

New  Orleans 
New  York 

2 

T 

3 

I 

3 

3 

3 

r 

1 
L 

1 

3 

D 

1 

2-1 

0      i 

bd 
p 

3J   W 

11 

3     2. 

w 
5* 
3 

3d 

I 

•D 

3 

o 

o  ^ 

a 

gi 

s 

HH 

j- 

95 

-q 

t—                     M    M                     i—i—                                       to 

Br* 

to    on                to          h-    to 

073O              tO^JC73              OnOCntO              tO     1—     i—                       ►— 

o 

073 

h-«   to 

MikikOiOiooioiMe 

073OI—     tOOOl—    ^IOl—     OOOOOntOC730ntOC73>—    073tO 

3^ 

aq  p 

00 

■ — '              ►*»-                                                                                                                                                         CO 

^1 

1— '             m    vj    M             tOCO             M    »    m    M    ^    M             CnWMMvJWMCOOOMM             075001—1             Ol    M    CO    M 

§7 

073 

0ncO4^>^C0l—    ^0073     —     tf3»tOCDtOl^l—     C»OOh-C73C>OCOCOOCOl—     ^J00>—     CO>—     OO^Jrfkl—    00 
Ok->^©co>—    ^OC7SCn^cn00t0C0C00000C0Cn~qt*».t0Oi—    00©tO0nCnc73i— >    i—    to    OO    © 

co 

o 

to 

CD 

tO 

I—                               hf^.                        -^J 

to                                                                       1— 

o 

^1 

>—                            OS                    i—            to            h-    On    >**.    ►— 

1—    1—    tO             OCO             tO    ^1    tO    073    l—    to             CO             l—    to    ►—    CO 

00 

Oi—    i—    CO>*».COCOOi—    tOOOCnOOni** 

OOOCOSNOOMOlOlCOHOMOOSCOOll-e^ 

3 

CO 

• 

!_, 

3E- 

On 

^J 

CO 

CO 

00 

to    --J 

tO                     h—       1— 

to    i—    i—    to                            On    ►—    t— 

CO              rf-              to     M 

p- 1 

o 

On    i— > 

O     073 

k-to^^i^ico^acni-' 

OlfflOMOOlOONltkM 

to>—   on   co   co   o   >**   co 

oo 

073 

s1^ 

O   (p 

to 

4-     4- 

oo           on           >— 

*- 

1—   -o   *».   to          co          to 

5r^ 

a> 

OO    -J 

i—  ^>.  *k 

O    -vl 

CO              4>-     073     CO 

00 

On 

o 

tOtOCOOtOC73              COtO 

MWOIOHCOCOMCO 

to 

On   -q 

OO     tO     073 

OO     CO 

073    to     CO     073     ►— 

to 

1—    CO 

© 

>-d 

<  2 

p  3 

© 

►—     CO 

oo 

3  3 
3.  w 

073 

OS 

o  o 

to 

to                          i—           co    On 

» << 

^j 

to 

073    ~J 

>*».>—    On 

CO      CO      071 

t—    00 

00 

OCOOlMNSOlS 

CO 

oo 

*. 

l— i     h— 

© 

3 
0 

On 

oo    »**. 

tO              hP*.              O     00     073     CO 

^J    CO              00 

4^     hi-     -  I                       tO 

CO 

oo 

03      O     CO 

OO 

>*»■>—     tO(OCDtOC73CO 

co    co    i—    On 

1—     t*».l—     tOCOl—     M     H 

55* 

<j 

~ 

■J3 

"cO 

to 

oo 

On 

3 

co 

oo 

to 

•<!  I— 

CO     CO     tO                       CO     073 

*»■    ►—                    OO    O!    to    o 

^J 

oo   to 

to    CO 

OO    -<I 

CO     CO    tO     ^.    073     O    OO 

1—     073 

bo 

^tOOlOOPCOlkUO 

p' 

co 

p  s* 

c+  3^ 
CO    "-J 

oo 

j—                                            >—                    CO    CO    ►—    rf*.    ►—    f—            rf».    to    co    to    co    to            i^    to    H    U    M    M    OO            >*»•    h-            to 

On 

O!     Ol                                         Cfl     (O     v)              l^Ol(OOl03v|OMOOHOOO:OiMlOtll«0101^1MH0001 

on 

01MOOMOl*k«)C>)00)(OOHMOO)tlll-i|iO)MtO*vlOHi|kO)M!0<OtJ10>000 

to 

J—                                                            1—              OS                                                            OO                                >—                                                   OO 

p  ^ 

o> 

*^              H-^Jh-'              S£tn              tn    O)     M     ^     m    M              OOlMtO^OlM^MOli^              O)    CO    oo              -g    M    W    M 

o 

°5?*ffi2SMOMsll,lc,ONMW®MMMCiiOOUOlOMMO)!OtoO)OOfflMOO^M 
01*^WOO^HikOMW00*MOOl(i00l(».OC»H0Jl(i|^Cv|MMC00lN*>SM 

oo 

to 

q  p 

^1 

l-i                       ►—     1—              00                                                                                                                                      k-              CO 

^J 

►*»■     tO                                         l—     On     to              CO     rf>.              *k     M    v)    M    vj    CO    Ol              tO     »*»•              CO                       rf^OOOCOl—     COCO***. 

On     ►**■ O     ^1     tO              »^l^00^J©aiO5MO5C              OO     On     I— '073              tOOOOl—     On©©— »COi«i. 

»*»■ 

©^©©1—    ©00073^0C73COCOtOOO^CDl^>—     tOOOOk-073tO>^>*".COtOOOk-On>*>.k-000 

On 

On 

I—1                       tO                       tOtOlJi.                                I— i                       OO                                to                                >—     i—     ~J              t— 

OO 

0>^^^!C;^*0SJ?10>030'ffi*^:OMO)v|*.CDO)*OOlltiOlNMOOMOJCnNlO) 

50  3 

-<l 

—     OO^CTSCCMl—    COOl^tOtOl—     OCOOOCOOOl—    COOtOOi—     QOtOCOOOCn^COOtOCOOOOS 

—  a- 

-4 

On 

aa 

~t 

CO 

G3 

ij 

- 1 

073 

00 

to 

" 

oa 

o 

--J 

CO 

co 

CO 

os 

so 

4^ 

lO 

!C 

073 

CO 

CO 

o 

►*- 

CO 

l*» 

o 

Oi 

en 

to 

- 

36  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA— EXPERIMENT    STATION 

in  thirty-four  cities  and  indicates  the  proportions  coming  from  Cali- 
fornia, the  rest  of  the  box  area,  and  the  barrel  area.  The  proportion 
of  the  total  commercial  crop  which  is  represented  by  the  unloads  at 
the  thirty-six  cities  given  in  table  14  may  be  estimated  by  assuming 
average  carlots  from  both  the  box  and  barrel  areas.  Average  carlots 
of  boxed  apples  contain  756  bushels  and  of  barreled  apples  525 
bushels.  On  this  basis  the  27,603  carlots  from  the  box  area  and 
27,774  carlots  from  the  barrel  area  amount  to  a  total  of  approximately 
35,000,000  bushels,  or  30  per  cent  of  the  1926  commercial  apple  crop. 

New  York  City  had  the  largest  number  of  carlot  unloads  with  a 
total  of  14,606,  of  which  8,472  came  from  the  barrel  area.  California 
supplied  317  of  the  6,134  carlots  from  the  box  areas.  Chicago  was 
next  in  importance  in  apple  unloads  with  a  total  of  7,834  carlots,  of 
which  a  trifle  over  one-half,  or  3,951  carlots,  came  from  the  barrel 
area  and  the  remainder  of  3,883  carlots  from  the  box  area.  Of  these 
3,883  carlots,  145  came  from  California. 

Figure  8  shows  graphically  the  fact  that  west  of  St.  Louis  more 
than  one-half  of  the  carlot  unloads  originated  in  the  box  area,  while 
east  of  St.  Louis,  with  the  exception  of  New  Orleans  in  the  south, 
more  than  one-half  of  the  unloads  came  from  the  barrel  area.  The 
smaller  middle-western  and  eastern  cities  received  a  larger  proportion 
of  their  apples  from  the  barrel  area  than  did  the  larger  cities. 

Cities  west  of  Denver  received  practically  all  of  their  apples  from 
the  box  area,  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  received  more  than  one- 
half  of  their  apples  from  California.  Western  cities  outside  of  Cali- 
fornia received  only  very  light  shipments  of  apples  from  California. 


IMPORTANT    FOREIGN    MARKETS    FOR    FRESH    APPLES 

The  bushels  of  fresh  apples  exported  annually  from  the  United 
States  from  1900  to  1926  are  shown  in  table  15.  Data  are  also  given 
for  thirteen  chief  importing  countries.  Exports  have  been  rather 
irregular,  varying  from  1,379,000  bushels  in  1901  to  12,295,000  bushels 
in  1923.  Since  1910  the  exports  each  year  have  fallen  within  the 
range  of  from  four  to  ten  million  bushels  ten  years  out  of  the  sixteen. 
During  the  years  1923  to  1925  exports  have  averaged  above  ten 
million  bushels,  and  in  1917,  1919,  and  1921  they  fell  below  four 
million  bushels.  Before  1910  the  usual  quantities  exported  varied 
from  two  to  four  million  bushels.  During  the  years  1923  to  1925  our 
exports  of  fresh  apples  amounted  to  from  11  to  12  per  cent  of  our 
commercial  crop. 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY 


37 


x   o 


CD     < 

P     CD 

5.    3 


o  _ 

O  &. 

cr  ° 

6  3 

co  O 


0    » 


c75  CD 

o    o 


COcOCOCOCOOCOCOCOCOCOOCOCOCOCOCOOCOCOOCOCOOCOCOCO 

tototototototoi-i»-'i— ti-*i-ii-t>-*i-'t-i>-~oooooooooo 

0)0l^WMHOOC0S0)tlIl|kWMHO!00CISfflCnifkW(0HO 

Year 
begin- 
ning 
July  1 

MMMQOCOMfflHCO             UtOblbOCOMUMMbOCCtOUi^i^MtO 

■<ioo5oa>tnrf».oiiN3i-'Oico>*>.toi-'Oii*>.>fkOt05005aioocn^-ifk 

OS     ft     OJ     ft                                                                                        CnOOCOOOCOI-iCOO>OTt*kOt*k              P— > 

o 

CD 

i 

OlMHMHH.MMO)-|.a!(nHOMlt>OJMWM*HHMHH-t 

B 

o 
ffl 

1^   u   u   #> 

h-ooh-H-t**rf».cotf».<r>          .—  to   i—         i—                                  i— 

02 

p- 

CD 

3 

QOOlOil^Ol^MMCn              Ol    S    ft     »    *k    M    f i 
H-C»ft^^H-^O0««>—    ftOOrf*»—    Ol-<IftCnOOtOWeASl^.++++ 

2 

O 

P 

ft    to             >-»                                                                t— >    1— t 

OviftW^tnft^O            Us^MCnWWi-'UMbO                    to 
»»JS00MMCji0ii|k-|.»OMeMH0l*Mi(k**0)O08-H. 

d 

CD 

3 
p 

•-J 

*     M     M     M 

M     00     M     CO                       I—                                                   CIWi-in-i-1                                M     IM- 'ft 

8  H 
3.»  2 

CT>  P  ^ 

OW>*^(»«OOQOfteo^(*».OCNCOOOtOftOcOOJOtftft>**Cr»Crc^- 

MM»M(DOW0)^l|kUi01M00HO0iMI»M*M»<iaOO 

o 

p 
o 
p 

p 

ftooi^.i-i^a<cio^aoboOh->*i.oo*«.i-iftc»3i-'tocorf^^4^aoftc« 

CD 

o' 

O 

l—                     tO    M    O    »    O    ^             M    M    ftWWrf»tOCOI-i<WtO 

p  ' 

^MHCnM^MMOOISCfiOOOO^CnblftbiOl^bltOWtOtOMtO 
C»CnOOOOtOi-'i*»i-itOOCnOi— 'CO-JftOO>-»*<l<C>OiOi*»-ftCn 

O 

c 
c 
p 

O^-00^M^SWfr^C0«JNfrftlt>b0MMMMMMM 

*a^tiifctDOMOiftftln©cSMWO(»M»MWSNO-f01 

w 
p 

2. 

tn     *.     bi     M     M                                                             H-     |_l     (_»     |_» 

MCOOlftOM^OOMOOMMifeOIOM 

p§ 

Ol*WW(OMMM                )_il_ll_l|_lt-»l-»l-'l-i(-ll-»                 to 

tOrf»-tOtOOOOtOrf^cDO~JCn-J^JCni-iOOOH-ft4».COCnOiftCOMi. 

^M^MHOMOMMOiMCnft^OlHOHOltOaifr^^OllC 

go 

a? 

2    CD 

cd'1"* 

CO 

tO     h-              (-> 

MHeMOlWMW*MOl^^*O^OlMlOMi|kW^ftitkHM 

H 

o 

1 

tOOfttOWtOCOl->^ICOtOCOOCHi*».CiGh—     MOlHOlftOlOOWOl 

coH-oco--aoocooitootocotntooicna>oic»t*>.H-tooa>c5-^icn 

tOC(0»fi.CyiOtOCntO«OCT>OCOCnOO«OOOftCOCOOO-v|0«lC»COH- 

38  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

The  United  Kingdom  has  received  by  far  the  largest  portion  of 
our  exports,  usually  from  two  to  four  million  bushels  before  the  war, 
and  from  two  to  eight  million  bushels  since  the  war.  Stated  in 
approximate  percentages  of  our  total  exports,  the  United  Kingdom 
received  80  to  90  per  cent  of  exports  before  the  war,  and  60  to  94 
per  cent  since  the  war.  Germany  received  approximately  one-tenth 
as  many  bushels  of  our  exported  apples  as  the  United  Kingdom  until 
the  war.  For  the  war  period  no  statistics  are  available.  Since  1923 
apple  exports  to  Germany  have  been  heavier  than  during  most  of  the 
pre-war  years. 

Sweden,  Denmark,  Cuba,  Brazil,  and  Argentina  have  been  increas- 
ing their  imports  of  fresh  apples  from  the  United  States  rather  con- 
sistently since  the  war,  each  importing  between  100,000  and  500,000 
bushels  annually.  Exports  to  Canada  since  1920  have  been  slightly 
less  than  they  were  from  1910  to  1914.  The  general  trend  of  our 
total  fresh-apple  exports  since  1900  has  been  upward  but  very 
irregular  from  year  to  year. 


IMPORTS  AND  EXPORTS  OF  FRESH,   DRIED,  AND  CANNED  APPLES 
IN  THE   UNITED  STATES 

The  data  on  import  and  exports  of  apples  in  the  United  States 
are  shown  for  1899  and  each  year  from  1909  to  1925  in  table  16.  Since 
1923  our  exports  of  fresh  apples  have  amounted  to  from  nine  to 
twelve  million  bushels,  or  approximately  6  per  cent  of  our  total  crop. 
Before  the  war  our  exports  seemed  to  be  increasing,  reaching  more 
than  seven  million  bushels  in  1914.  During  the  war  our  exports 
declined  and  did  not  recover  until  1920,  when  almost  eight  million 
bushels  were  exported.  Our  exports  of  dried  apples  have  declined 
slightly  since  the  1910-1914  period.  During  that  period  our  average 
annual  exports  of  dried  apples  amounted  to  an  equivalent  of  almost 
six  million  bushels  of  fresh  apples.  During  the  five-year  period,  1921 
to  1925,  they  amounted  to  approximately  the  equivalent  of  three 
million  bushels  of  fresh  apples. 

Exports  of  canned  apples  are  of  only  minor  importance  at  present 
and  have  been  reported  separately  only  since  1923. 

Our  net  exports  of  apples  in  all  forms,  i.e.,  exports  minus  imports, 
are  approximately  eleven  million  bushels,  the  same  for  the  last  five 
years,  1921  to  1925,  as  for  the  years  1910  to  1914.  During  the  last 
three  years,  however,  our  average  annual  net  exports  have  been  nearly 
fifteen  millions,  approximately  8  per  cent  of  our  total  crop. 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS   OF   THE  APPLE   INDUSTRY 


39 


TABLE  16 
United  States  Imports  and  Exports  of  Fresh,  Dried,  and  Canned  Apples, 

1899  and  1909-1925 


Imports 

Exports 

Total 
exports : 
fresh 
equivalent 
in  thou- 
sands of 
bushels 

Year 

Fresh 
thou- 
sands of 
bushels 

Fresh 
thou- 
sands of 
bushels 

Dried 

Canned 

Net 

exports, 

i.  e.  exports 

beginning 
July  1 

Thou- 
sands of 
pounds 

Fresh 

equivalent 

in  thousands 

of  bushels* 

Thou- 
sands of 
pounds 

Fresh 

equivalent 

in  thousands 

of  bushelst 

minus 
imports  in 
thousands 
of  bushels 

1899  .... 

1,581 
2,766 
5,163 
4,368 
6,450 
4,521 
7,056 
4,398 
5,220 
1,905 
4,728 
3,153 
7,995 
3,282 
5,370 

12,294 
9,603 

11,013 

35,000 
25,000 
22,000 
54,000 
42,000 
34,000 
43,000 
16,000 
10,000 
3,000 
19,000 
12,000 
18,000 
12,000 
13,000 
30,000 
19,000 
25,000 

5,320 
3,800 
3,344 
8,208 
6,384 
5,168 
6,536 
2,432 
1,520 
456 
2,888 
1,824 
2,736 
1,824 
1,976 
4,560 
2,888 
3,800 

6,901 

6,566 

8,507 

12,576 

12,834 

9,689 

13,592 

6,830 

6,740 

2,361 

7,616 

4,977 

10,731 

5,106 

7,346 

16,983 

12,817 

15,147 

6,901 

1909  .. 

6,566 
8,507 

1910 

1911 

12,576 

1912 

12,834 

1913.  ... 

9,689 

1914 

13,592 

1915 

6,830 

1916 

6,740 

1917 

2,361 

1918 

7,608 

1919. ... 

4,977 
10,731 

1920 

1921 

5,106 

1922... 

153 
131 
106 

74 

7,193 

1923 

5,000 
13,000 
13,000 

129 
334 
334 

16,852 

1924 

12,711 

1925 

15,073 

*  Thousands  of  pounds  dried  converted  to  thousands  of  bushels  fresh  by  multiplying  by  0.152. 
t  Thousands  of  pounds  canned  converted  to  thousands  of  bushels  fresh  by  multiplying  by  0.0257. 

Data  for  imports  and  exports  from  June  numbers  of  U.  S.  Monthly  Summary 
of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce  1916-1926.  (From  1905-1915  this  was 
named  U.  S.  Monthly  Summary  of  Commerce  and  Finance,  Department  of  Com- 
merce.)    Year  1899  from  Commerce  and  Navigation. 


APPLE   PRICES  AND  THEIR   RELATION  TO   PRODUCTION 

The  longest  price  series  available  is  that  of  New  York  wholesale 
prices,  and  the  longest  series  of  production  figures  available  is  that  of 
total  production  in  the  United  States.     These  are  given  in  table  17. 

Prices  have  been  greatly  affected  by  the  changing  value  of  the 
dollar,  especially  during  the  war.  In  order  to  make  at  least  approxi- 
mate corrections  for  the  changing  value  of  the  dollar  the  prices  have 
been  divided  by  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  all  commodity  index 
number  of  wholesale  prices  in  the  United  States.  This  index  number 
is  made  up  of  prices  of  more  than  four  hundred  commodities  and 
hence  gives  a  good  measure  of  the  general  price  level.  Dividing  the 
price  of  apples  by  this  index  number  gives  the  purchasing  power  of 
apples  in  terms  of  those  commodities  included  in  the  index  number. 


40 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 


TABLE  17 

Total  Apple  Production  in  the  United  States,  New  York  Prices, 

and  Purchasing  Power 


Crop  year 

Total  production 

in  thousands  of 

bushels 

Price  per 
barrel 

Purchasing  power 
per  barrel 

1881 

$2.92 
2.84 
2.99 
2.04 
1.67 
3.00 
2.35 
1.84 
3.00 
3.75 
1.57 
2.50 
3.55 
2.83 
2.38 
1.69 
3.29 
3.67 
2.71 
2.95 
4.49 
2.19 
2.85 
2.36 
4.26 
3.30 
3.32 
3.97 
3.64 
4  34 
3.20 
2.93 
4.28 
2.92 
3.02 
4.73 
5.10 
7.60 
7.54 
5.68 
7.84* 
5.12 
4.66 
6.71* 
5.57t 

$3.04 

1882 

2.96 

1883 

3.25 

1884 

2.37 

1885 

2.02 

1886 

3.62 

1887 

2.80 

1888 

2.19 

1889 

143,105 
80,142 
198,907 
120,536 
114,773 
134,648 
219,600 
232,600 
163,728 
118,061 
175,397 
205,930 
135,500 
212,330 
195,680 
233,630 
136,220 
216,720 
119,560 
148,940 
146,122 
141,640 
214,020 
235,220 
145,410 
253,200 
230,011 
193,905 
166,749 
169,625 
142.086 
223,677 
99,002 
202,702 
202,842 
171,725 
172,389 
246,460 

3.57 

1890 

4  51 

1891 

1.96 

1892 

3.20 

1893 

4.74 

1894 

3.99 

1895 

3.40 

1896 

2.49 

1897 

4.70 

1898 

4.96 

1899 

3.39 

1900 

3.69 

1901 

5.41 

1902 

2  46 

1903 

3  28 

1904 

2  65 

1905 

4  79 

1906 

3  51 

1907 

3  57 

1908 

4  18 

1909 

3  50 

1910 

4.52 

1911 

3  27 

1912 

2.87 

1913 

4  24 

1914 

2.92 

1915 

2.65 

1916 

3.01 

1917 

2  68 

1918 

3  73 

1919 

3  25 

1920 

3  16 

1921 

5  44* 

1922 

3  22 

1923 

3  03 

1924 

4  22* 

1925 

3.46f 

1926 

*  September  to  April  average. 

f  September  to  December  average  (1925). 

Sources:  Total  production— 1899-1923,  U.S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook  1924:664; 
1924-1926— Crops  and  Markets  Monthly  Supplement  1926(12)  :401.  New  York 
prices  are  averages  of  figures  in  U.S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook  1923:739,  and  U.  S. 
Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook  1925:869. 

Purchasing  power  was  calculated  by  dividing  the  prices  by  the  Bureau  of 
Labor  Statistics  index  numbers  of  wholesale  prices  of  all  commodities  as  given 
in  the  Supplement  to  the  Agricultural  Situation,  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Agricultural 
Economics,  1925,  and  later  monthly  issues  of  the  Agricultural  Situation. 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS   OF   THE  APPLE   INDUSTRY 


41 


A  price  adjusted  in  this  way  is  often  designated  as  purchasing  power, 
deflated  price,  or  simply  adjusted  price.  In  table  17  it  is  designated 
as  purchasing  power  and  is  shown  in  the  last  column.  Figure  9  shows 
the  New  York  price  of  apples  per  barrel  from  1881  to  1925  converted 
to  a  purchasing-power  basis  and  compared  with  the  total  United 
States  production,  in  bushels,  from  1889  to  1925. 


Total  United  States  Apple  Production  and  Purchasing  Power  Based  on 
Average  New  York  Wholesale  Prices,  September  to  May 


Dollars    Bvsliais 
Pur-       Or>nh 
3b/.  lioni) 


3.00        300 


Z.OO       ZOO 


I.OO         IOO 


Fig.  9. — Illustrating  part  of  table  17.  During  years  of  short  apple  crops  the 
purchasing  power  per  barrel  is  usually  high,  and  during  years  of  large  crops 
the  purchasing  power  per  barrel  is  usually  low.  The  trend  in  purchasing  power 
is  upward  from  1881  to  1901.  Since  1901  there  is  no  evidence  of  any  long-time 
trend  up  or  down. 

The  purchasing  power  of  apples  based  on  New  York  prices  shows 
a  general  upward  trend  from  1881  to  1901  (see  fig.  9).  Beginning 
with  1902  it  is  difficult  to  determine  the  trend.  Lines  of  trend  can 
be  determined  mathematically,  but  their  slope  would  be  affected 
greatly  by  the  particular  period  included.  Thus  from  1901  to  1915 
or  1917  the  trend  would  be  downward.  From  1902  to  1917  the  trend 
would  be  practically  level.  The  period  from  1902  to  1925  would  show 
a  slight  upward  trend.  The  trend  since  1900,  based  on  New  York 
prices,  has  been  approximately  level.  Variations  in  purchasing  power 
from  year  to  year  have  generally  been  in  the  opposite  direction  from 
the  variations  in  production.  This  is  particularly  noticeable  during 
the  short-crop  years  of  1910,  1913,  and  1921,  when  prices  were  high, 
and  during  the  large-crop  years  of  1912,  1914,  1920,  1922,  and  1923, 
when  prices  were  low. 


42 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


CORRELATION   OF   PURCHASING    POWER   AND  TOTAL   UNITED 
STATES    PRODUCTION 

The  closeness  of  the  association  between  purchasing  power  and 
production  as  shown  in  figure  9  is  shown  in  another  way,  for  the  years 
1910  to  1925,  in  figure  10.  The  purchasing  power  per  barrel  is 
measured  by  the  vertical  scale  and  the  production  by  the  horizontal 


Based  on 

Average  New  York  Wholesale  Prices,  September  to 

May 

5.40 
5.ZO 

Zi* 

*.eo 

S? 

Qq  440 

^4ZO 

\  400 

*  3.60 
to 

•  10 

•  '3 

,Z4 

t 

m 

g  340 

^S 

m/9 

mzz 

•  U 

300 

%'e 

mZ3 

•zo 

s^a? 

•'*- 

Z.60 

/7m 

* 

ts 

d' 

90        100      110       /ZO      J30     /40      150     l&O      170      I60      /90    ZOO    Z/O     ZZO    Z30   Z40    Z50  Z€0 
T<yf-a/    Pr-oc/oc-f-Zan    /n    M/JI/'ons    o-f  0ush&ls 

Fig.  10. — Illustrating  part  of  table  17.  Each  dot  represents  the  production 
of  one  year  read  on  the  horizontal  scale,  and  accompanying  purchasing  power 
read  on  the  vertical  scale.  The  figure  10  represents  the  crop  year  1910,  13 
represents  1913,  etc.  The  line  dd'  represents  the  average  relationship  between 
production  and  purchasing  power. 


scale.  Each  dot  represents  the  production  and  accompanying  pur- 
chasing power  of  a  given  year.  For  example,  in  1921  the  production 
was  99, 000, 000  bushels  and  the  purchasing  power  per  barrel  (see 
table  17  or  fig.  9)  was  $5.44.     These  two  readings  on  the  horizontal 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS   OF   THE  APPLE   INDUSTRY 


43 


and  vertical  scales  respectively,  locate  the  dot  marked  '21.'  The 
other  dots  are  located  in  the  same  way.  The  line  dd'  represents  the 
average  relationship  between  purchasing  power  and  production.  If 
there  were  perfect  correlation  between  purchasing  power  and  pro- 
duction each  dot  would  fall  on  some  line  like  dd' .  Since  there  is  some 
scatter  about  the  line  dd',  it  is  evident  that  other  factors  than  pro- 
duction have  affected  the  purchasing  power.  In  this  case  approxi- 
mately 60  per  cent  of  the  variations  in  the  purchasing  power,  however, 
may  be  attributed  to  variations  in  production.  Probably  a  consider- 
able proportion  of  the  scatter  about  the  line  dd'  is  due  to  inaccuracies 
in  the  data,  on  purchasing  power  and  production. 

SEASONAL  VARIATIONS  IN  THE  PURCHASING   POWER  OF  APPLES 

A  study  of  the  monthly  prices  of  apples  shows  that  there  is  con- 
siderable regularity  in  the  trend  during  each  season.  Table  18  and 
figure  11  show  average  seasonal  variations  from  September  to  May 
for  the  years  1906-7  to  1915-16,  and  for  1916-17  to  1925-26.  Con- 
trary to  expectations,  the  seasonal  variations  during  the  last  ten  years 


Indexes  of  Seasonal  Variation  in  New  York  Wholesale  Apple  Prices 
Per  Gsn+- 

a* 
Ave. 

/20 


HO 


100 


90 


80 


Av 

erage, 

/906-' 

7  -fa  /9k 

******* 

^ 

y 

r   f 

^£ 

tmm 

Av^rc: 

<3&j    /St 

<S-/T 

-ro   I9Z. 

T -&5 

$ep-h     Ocr.        No\/.         Dec.      Uan.        Feb.        Mar.        Apr.       rlau 

Fig.  11. — Illustrating  part  of  table  18.     September  wholesale  apple  prices  in 

New  York  as  a  rule  are  approximately  84  per  cent  of  the  average  September- 

to-May  price.     The  price  in  May  usually  averages  113  per  cent  of  the  average 

September-to-May  price. 


44 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


were  as  great  as  those  of  the  previous  ten  years.  For  the  first  ten 
years,  taking  100  as  the  average  for  the  season,  the  September  price 
is  85  and  the  May  price  is  115.  For  the  second  period  the  September 
price  is  83  compared  with  a  price  of  111  in  May. 

TABLE  18 

Seasonal  Variations  in  the  Purchasing  Power  of  Apples 


1906-7  to  1915-6 

1916-17  to  1925-26 

85 

94 

94 

96 

97 

102 

104 

114 

115 

83 

93 

94 

December 

January 

February 

96 
100 
104 

March 

April 

109 
113 

May 

111 

Average 

103 

100 

Data  for  1906-1907  to  1908-1909  from  U.S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook  1923:739; 
for  years  1909-10  to  1925  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook  1925:869. 

Figure  10  gives  some  basis  for  judging  the  price  that  is  likely  to 
accompany  a  given  production.  Figure  11  gives  some  basis  for 
adjusting  this  estimate  for  the  various  months  of  the  year.  To  adjust 
the  purchasing  power  in  figure  10  approximately  to  the  1927  price 
level,  multiply  it  by  one  and  five-tenths  (1.5). 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS   OF   THE  APPLE   INDUSTRY 


45 


Part  II 
THE  SITUATION  IN  CALIFORNIA 

The  main  part  of  this  study  dealing  with  marketing  and  prices  of 
California  apples  by  grades,  varieties,  and  sizes  was  made  possible 
through  the  cooperation  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Agricultural 
Economics  and  the  various  public  and  private  agencies  in  California 
that  supplied  the  data  upon  which  this  study  is  based.  Mr.  M.  K. 
Cooper,  Agricultural  Economist  representing  the  United  States 
Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics,  aided  in  planning  the  work,  and 
the  Bureau  paid  practically  all  of  the  salary  and  the  expenses  of  one 
man  who  was  in  the  field  for  two  months  getting  the  necessary 
statistical  data. 


IMPORTANCE    OF   THE    APPLE    INDUSTRY    IN    CALIFORNIA 

The  average  values  for  1923  and  1924  of  the  twenty-three  most 
important  crops  in  California  are  shown  in  table  19.  Apples  ranked 
fifteenth    with    an    average    value    of    $9,369,000    compared    with 


TABLE  19 
Value  of  Important  Crops  in  California,  Average  of  1923  and  1924 


Rank 


Crop 


Value  in  thou- 
sands of  dollars 
(Dec.  1) 


Per  cent  of 
hay 


Hay  (tame  and  wild) 

Oranges 

Grapes  (all) 

Barley 

Lemons 

Beans 

Prunes 

Wheat 

Nuts  (almonds  and  walnuts). 

Cantaloupes 

Peaches 

Cotton  (seed  and  lint) 

Lettuce 

Tomatoes 

Apples 

Asparagus 

Potatoes 

Pears .". 

Sugar  beets 

Apricots 

Corn 

Cherries 

Sweet  potatoes 


88,715 

56,628 

51,525 

21,292 

16,446 

16,406 

14,145 

13,080 

12,808 

11,901 

10,335 

9,633 

9,443 

9,430 

9,369 

8,952 

7,722 

7,714 

7,557 

5,891 

4,315 

2,305 

1,185 


100.0 

63,8 

58.1 

24.0 

18.5 

18.5 

15.9 

14.7 

14.4 

13.4 

11.6 

10.9 

10.6 

10.6 

10.6 

10.1 

8.7 

8.7 

8.5 

6.6 

4.9 

2.6 

1.3 


Data  from  Kaufman,  E.  E.   California  crop  reports  for  1925  and  1926.     Cali- 
fornia Dept.  Agr.  Spec.  Pub.  63:8,  9,  26,  27,  29;  and  74:7,  8,  13,  14,  17,  18. 


46 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA— EXPERIMENT   STATION 


,715,000  for  hay,  which  was  the  crop  of  highest  value.  On  a  per- 
centage basis  the  apple  crop  was  10.6  per  cent  as  valuable  as  the  hay 
crop.  Oranges,  grapes,  lemons,  prunes,  and  peaches  were  above  apples 
in  value.  Their  values  were  63.8,  58.1,  18.5,  15.9,  and  11.6  per  cent, 
respectfully,  of  the  value  of  hay. 

The  average  acreages  devoted  to  the  various  crops  in  California 
in  1923  and  1924  are  shown  in  table  20.     Hay  leads  with  2,153,000 


TABLE  20 
Acreage  of  Important  Crops  in  California,  Average  of  1923  and  1924 


Rank 

Crop 

Acreage* 

Per  cent  of 
hay  acreage 

1 

Hay 

2,153,000 

930,000 

562,500 

476,303 

252,500 

176,899 

128,154 

124,067 

109,712 

106,000 

105,000 

72,500 

65,497 

50,838 

49,000 

43,073 

43,118 

40,680 

36,380 

31,380 

29,135 

10,326 

6,000 

100  0 

2 

Barley 

43  2 

3 

Wheat 

26.1 

4 

Grapes 

22  1 

5 

Beans 

11.7 

6 

Oranges 

8.2 

7 

Nuts 

6  0 

8 

Prunes 

5  8 

9 

Peaches 

5  1 

10 

Cotton 

4  9 

11 

Corn 

4  9 

12 

Sugar  beets 

3.4 

13 

Apricots 

3  0 

14 

Apples 

2  4 

15 

2  3 

16 

Pears 

2  0 

17 

Lemons 

2  0 

18 

Tomatoes 

1  9 

19 

Cantaloupes 

1  7 

20 

Lettuce 

1  5 

21 

Asparagus 

1  4 

22 

Cherries 

0  5 

S3 

Sweet  potatoes 

0  3 

*  Bearing  acreage  for  the  fruit  crops. 

Data  from  Kaufman,  E.  E.    California  crop  reports  for  1925  and  1926. 
fornia  Dept.  Agr.  Spec  Pub.  63:8,  9,  29,  31;  and  74:7,  8,  13,  14,  26. 


Cali- 


acres,  while  apples  were  fourteenth  with  50,838  acres,  or  2.4  per  cent 
of  the  acreage  in  hay.  Grapes  occupied  22.1  per  cent  as  many  acres 
as  hay;  oranges,  8.2;  prunes,  5.8;  peaches,  5.1;  and  apricots,  3.0  per 
cent.  Of  the  fruit  crops  in  California,  apples  ranked  fifth  in  area 
devoted  to  the  crop  and  sixth  in  value.  For  the  United  States  as  a 
whole,  however,  apples  are  almost  three  times  as  important,  both  in 
acreage  and  value,  as  the  next  most  important  fruit  crop.  Hence  in 
studying  the  outlook  for  the  apple  industry  in  California,  conditions 
in  the  rest  of  the  United  States  require  careful  consideration. 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS   OF   THE  APPLE   INDUSTRY 


47 


AREAS    DEVOTED    TO    APPLE    PRODUCTION    IN    CALIFORNIA 

The  most  important  apple  district  in  California  is  the  Watsonville 
district  (see  fig.  12)  in  Santa  Cruz  County  and  the  northern  part  of 
Monterey  County.  Yellow  Newtowns  make  up  approximately  56  per 
cent  of  the  total  acreage,  Yellow  Bellflowers  34  per  cent,  and  Pear- 
mains  and  miscellaneous  varieties  10  per  cent. 


Acreage  of  Apples  in  California 
(Each  dot  =  500  acres) 


%  \5LtNN  V\<  RA 


\ 


\ 


V 


*>xs 


\ 


\ 


\ 


\ 


•  • 


ANTA  BARBARA!    v/j,       v 


A^Jf*- < 


SAN       BE  RN ARD I  N  0 


I   IMPERIAL 


Fig.  12. — The  most  important  apple  district  in  California  is  the  Watsonville 
district  in  Santa  Cruz  and  northern  Monterey  counties.  Second  in  importance 
is  the  Sebastopol  district  in  Sonoma  County,  and  third  the  Yucaipa  district  in 
San  Bernardino  County. 


48  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 

The  second  important  district  is  the  Sebastopol  district  in  Sonoma 
County.  Here  approximately  75  per  cent  of  the  total  acreage  is  in 
Gravensteins.  In  recent  years  nearly  all  of  the  July  shipments  of 
fresh  apples  from  the  far-western  states  and  from  30  to  40  per  cent 
of  the  total  United  States  fresh  apple  shipments  in  July  were  Graven- 
steins from  the  Sebastopol  district. 

Next  in  importance  from  the  standpoint  of  acreage  is  the  Yucaipa 
district  near  Redlands  in  San  Bernardino  County.  This  is  at  an 
elevation  of  2,500  to  3,000  feet.  A  similar  area,  but  only  about  one- 
third  as  large  is  located  in  Riverside  County  near  Beaumont.  The 
other  apple  plantings  are  mainly  scattered  through  various  foothill 
and  mountain  valleys  of  Kern,  Tulare,  Fresno,  Inyo,  Tuolumne,  and 
Mendocino  counties.  Relatively  few  apples  are  shipped  by  rail  from 
any  of  these  districts. 


TREND  IN  ACREAGE   BY  COUNTIES 

The  statistics  on  bearing  acres  of  apples  from  1921  to  1927  (table 
21  and  fig.  13),  compiled  by  the  California  Cooperative  Crop  Report- 
ing Service,  and  statistics  on  numbers  of  bearing  and  non-bearing 
trees  for  1910,  1920,  and  1925  (table  7),  compiled  by  the  United  States 
Census  Bureau,  affords  a  basis  for  judging  the  course  of  production 
in  the  various  districts  for  several  years  to  come.  According  to  table 
21,  the  apple  acreage  in  Santa  Cruz  County  remained  constant  at 
15,500  from  1921  to  1924  and  then  began  a  slow  decline  to  15,100  in 
1927.  The  census  shows  a  smaller  number  of  non-bearing  trees  (trees 
not  of  bearing  age)  in  1925  than  in  1910.  Monterey  County  shows 
an  increase  of  approximately  200  acres  in  bearing  trees  from  1921  to 
1927.  The  number  of  non-bearing  trees  decreased  from  1910  to  1925. 
For  the  Watsonville  district  as  a  whole  the  outlook  from  present 
plantings  is  a  decline  in  bearing  acreage. 

Sonoma  County  shows  an  increase  from  7,713  acres  in  1921  to 
9,750  acres  in  1927.  Estimates  of  non-bearing  acreages  for  1927 
indicate  that  there  are  more  than  50  per  cent  as  many  acres  of  non- 
bearing  trees  as  bearing  trees,  although  there  have  been  practically 
no  new  plantings  since  1922.  On  this  basis  an  increase  in  bearing 
acreage  is  to  be  expected  for  several  years  more. 

San  Bernardino  County  shows  a  moderate  increase  in  bearing 
acreage  from  1921  to  1925,  followed  by  a  slight  decline  up  to  1927. 
The  census  reports  show  a  marked  decline  in  the  number  of  non-bear- 
ing trees  from  1920  to  1925,  which  indicates  a  comparatively  long 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY 


49 


period  of  decreasing  acreages  of  bearing  trees  ahead.  Riverside 
County  shows  a  moderate  increase  in  bearing  acreage  from  1921  to 
1926,  but  practically  no  increase  from  1926  to  1927.  The  number  of 
non-bearing  trees,  according  to  the  census,  decreased  nearly  80  per 
cent  from  1920  to  1925,  which  must  result  in  some  decrease  in  bearing 
acreage  in  the  near  future. 


Bearing  Acreage  in  Apples  in  Santa  Cruz  and  Monterey  Counties,  in  Sonoma 
County,  in  San  Bernardino  County,  and  Total  in  State,  1921-1927 
Arrest— 


eoooo 


soooo 


40000 


30000 


zoooo 


/oooo 


y 


Other  Counties 

San  Bernard/no 

Sonoma 

Santa  Cruz  *"  rlonf-er&c/ 


/9Z/ 


/9£Z       /9Z3        /9Z4        /9Z5 


/9Z6 


/9Z7 


Fig.  13. — Illustrating  part  of  table  21. — The  bearing  apple  acreage  in  Santa 
Cruz  and  Monterey  counties  and  in  San  Bernardino  County  declined  slightly 
since  1925.  In  Sonoma  County  and  for  the  state  as  a  whole  the  bearing  acreage 
is  still  increasing. 


50 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  21 
Bearing  Acres  of  Apples  in  California  by  Counties,  1921-1927 


District  No.  1: 

Del  Norte 

Humboldt 

Mendocino 

District  No.  2: 

Shasta 

Siskiyou 

Trinity 

District  No.  3: 

Lassen 

Modoc 

Plumas 

District  No.  4: 

Alameda 

Contra  Costa 

Lake 

Marin 

Monterey 

Napa 

San  Benito 

San  Luis  Obispo 

San  Mateo 

Santa  Clara 

Santa  Cruz 

Sonoma 

District  No.  S.- 
Butte  

Colusa 

Glenn 

Sacramento 

Solano 

Sutter 

Tehama 

Yolo 

Yuba 

District  No.  5a: 

Fresno 

Kern 

Kings 

Madera 

Merced 

San  Joaquin 

Stanislaus 

Tulare 

District  No.  6: 

Alpine 

Amador 

Calaveras 

Eldorado 

Inyo 

Mariposa 

Mono 

Nevada 


1921 


515 
964 

318 

294 
53 


251 


385 

300 

265 

85 

3,400 
300 
175 
500 
270 
400 
15,500 

7,713 

250 
25 
70 

237 
50 

134 

138 
60 
30 

1,105 
458 
38 
120 
67 
60 
61 
623 


110 


400 
600 


51 

249 


1922 


544 
1,021 


318 

800 

53 


96 
276 


350 

300 

265 

80 

3,405 
325 
179 
550 
278 
400 
15,500 

7,950 

250 
25 
69 

237 
55 

155 

138 
60 
30 

1,105 
458 
38 
120 
75 
60 
76 
645 


110 
180 
400 
600 
180 
51 
300 


1923 


569 
1,096 

294 

800 

53 


301 


300 

300 

255 

80 

3,455 
350 
183 
600 
283 
800 
15,500 

8,460 

250 
25 
68 

241 
55 

124 

138 
62 
30 

1,105 

629 
38 

120 
80 
60 
80 

667 


110 


400 
650 


51 
300 


1924 


598 
,171 

270 

800 

53 

96 
326 


250 

300 

245 

80 

3,500 
375 
187 
650 
288 
900 
15,500 

8,950 

250 
25 
67 

245 
55 
92 

138 
64 
30 

1,105 
800 
38 
120 
85 
60 
84 
689 


110 
158 
400 
700 
180 
51 
300 


1925 


630 
1,245 

270 

850 

53 

96 
350 


200 

315 

250 

80 

3,550 
400 
187 
700 
297 

lv000 
15,400 

9,200 

312 
25 
67 

250 
55 
97 

138 
60 
30 


200 

280 
38 

120 
85 
60 
82 

701 


115 
171 
425 
700 
190 
51 
304 


1926 


833 
1,212 

270 

950 

53 

96 

350 

32 

143 

330 

256 

70 

3,601 
400 
190 
700 
310 

1,096 
15,300 

9,450 

528 
25 
68 

250 
70 
97 

138 
63 
30 

1,225 
1,344 

38 
142 
91 
60 
93 
732 


120 
174 
450 
,052 
170 
51 
300 


1927 


848 
1,275 


270 

1,000 


60 

351 

32 

145 

400 

260 

70 

3,591 
400 
191 
725 
350 

1,099 
15,100 

9,750 

548 
25 
67 

260 

128 
98 

140 
64 
30 

1,200 
1,344 

38 
142 
103 
65 
88 
732 


120 
174 
450 
,052 
170 
51 
300 


Data  from  California  Crop  Reporting  Service.     Estimated  bearing  acres  of 
apples  in  California.     1  p.  (mimeo.).    1927. 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS   OF   THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY 


51 


TABLE  21- 

—  (Continued) 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

1927 

District  No.  6: 

Placer 

472 

18 

600 

478 

18 

800 

481 

18 

850 

484 

18 

900 

490 

18 

920 

486 

18 

1,200 

484 

Sierra 

18 

1,500 

District  No.  8: 

Los  Angeles 

917 
280 
1,585 
5,083 
700 
140 
255 

1,031 

280 
1,625 
5,385 
675 
150 
256 

1,031 
280 
1,700 
5,425 
650 
160 
260 

1,031 

280 
1,800 
5,465 
625 
170 
256 

1,150 

280 
1,900 
5,868 
575 
180 
263 

1,054 

280 
1,940 
5,840 
537 
180 
269 

1,016 
251 

Riverside 

1,942 
5,743 

612 

180 

Ventura 

273 

State ...     . 

47,130 

48,805 

50,262 

51,414 

53,273 

54,757 

55,325 

Several  counties  with  acreages  of  from  500  to  1,000  in  1921  have 
shown  rather  important  percentage  increases  from  1921  to  1927 ;  they 
are  Humboldt,  Mendocino,  San  Luis  Obispo,  Kern,  and  Tuolumne. 
For  the  state  as  a  whole,  according  to  table  21,  the  acreage  of  bearing 
trees  increased  from  47,130  in  1921  to  55,325  in  1927 — an  increase  of 
17  per  cent.  According  to  the  United  States  Census  the  increase  in 
bearing  trees  from  1920  to  1925  was  13  per  cent,  and  the  increase  from 
1910  to  1920  was  26  per  cent. 

The  relative  number  of  non-bearing  trees  for  the  state,  taking  1910 
as  100,  was  126  in  1920,  and  84  in  1925.  This  points  towards  an 
increase  in  bearing  acreage  for  several  more  years,  after  which  a 
decrase  may  be  expected. 


CARLOT  SHIPMENTS  OF  APPLES   IN   CALIFORNIA  BY   MONTHS 

Records  of  carlot  shipments  of  apples  are  available  by  months  since 
1918.  These  are  summarized  by  months  in  table  22  and  by  years  in 
figure  14.  While  the  total  shipments  by  years  do  not  show  any  trend 
up  or  down,  the  July  shipments,  though  irregular,  show  a  decided 
upward  trend,  due  to  the  increase  in  Gravenstein  apples  from  the 
Sebastopol  district.  In  1918  and  1919  the  July  shipments  amounted 
to  66  and  273  carlots  respectively.  In  1925  and  1926  they  amounted 
to  341  and  1,491  carlots,  respectively. 

The  peak  load  of  shipments  comes  in  October  in  seven  years  out 
of  nine.  In  1922  the  peak  came  in  August  and  in  1926  it  came  in 
July.  The  shipments  in  the  peak  month  usually  range  from  1,000  to 
1,500  carlots. 


52 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


On  an  average  88.5  per  cent  of  the  season's  apple  crop  is  shipped 
by  the  last  of  December.  During  1925,  when  the  yield  of  apples  was 
unusually  low,  only  81.3  per  cent  of  the  total  shipments  of  the  season 
moved  by  December  31.    In  1923,  a  year  of  high  shipments,  the  per- 


Carlot  Shipments  of  Apples  from  Santa  Cruz  and  Monterey  Counties,  and 
from  Sonoma  County,  and  Total  from  State,  1920-1926 

Carfo-hs 


7O0O 


<pOOO 


5000  - 


4  000 


3000  - 


ZOOO 


lOOO 


Other  Count/ qs 

v>  Sonoma 

:\  San-fa  Cruz  + 
Mon-far&y 


i9zo 


/9Z/ 


/9zz 


/9Z3 


/9Z4- 


/9Z5 


/9Z<3 


Fig.  14. — Illustrating  part  of  table  23.  From  90  to  95  per  cent  of  the  apple 
shipments  in  carlots  came  from  the  Watsonville  district  of  Santa  Cruz  and 
Monterey  counties,  and  from  Sonoma  County. 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY 


53 


centage  of  the  total  shipments  moved  by  December  31  was  92.7.  As 
a  rule,  between  86  and  92  per  cent  of  the  total  shipments  for  the  crop 
year  occur  by  December  31. 

TABLE  22 
Carlot  Shipments  of  Apples  in  California  by  Months,  1918-1927 


June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June* 

Total 

1918-19 

6 

66 

468 

486 

797 

585 

501 

198 

226 

81 

42 

12 

5 

3,473 

1919-20 

5 

273 

441 

877 

908 

709 

370 

155 

148 

173 

48 

41 

5 

4,153 

1920-21 

5 

219 

584 

998 

1,002 

787 

389 

116 

86 

70 

78 

67 

12 

4,413 

1921-22 

10 

301 

677 

1,250 

1,534 

714 

174 

120 

117 

101 

42 

21 

1 

5,062 

1922-23 

2 

212 

998 

782 

920 

887 

495 

179 

103 

168 

107 

78 

30 

4,961 

1923-24 

61 

1,290 

984 

1,277 

1,431 

771 

219 

122 

77 

123 

55 

65 

30 

6,505 

1924-25 

22 

734 

645 

943 

1,185 

695 

186 

120 

111 

97 

85 

59 

9 

4,891 

1925-26 

53 

341 

155 

498 

691 

227 

90 

99 

100 

109 

74 

63 

31 

2,531 

1926-27 

90 

1,494 

591 

959 

990 

352 

149 

79 

72 

137 

102 

58 

5,073 

*  This  column  gives  the  shipments  of  the  old  crop. 

Data  from  June,  1918,  to  June,  1920,  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Statis.  Bul.  7:2; 
for  June,  1920,  to  Dec,  1926,  from  U.S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook  1926:899;  for 
Jan.  to  June,  1927,  from  Crops  and  Markets  4: (2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7). 


TREND    IN   SHIPMENTS   BY   COUNTIES 

The  total  number  of  carlots  of  California  apples  shipped  was  4,477 
in  1920  and  5,100  in  1926  (table  23  and  fig.  14).  The  highest  ship- 
ments came  in  1923  with  6,698  carlots,  and  the  lowest  in  1925  with 
2,536  carlots.  By  far  the  most  important  districts  from  the  standpoint 
of  rail  shipments  are  in  Santa  Cruz  and  Sonoma  counties.  In  1920, 
carlot  shipments  from  Santa  Cruz  County  amounted  to  71  per  cent  of 
the  state  total.  Sonoma  County  was  second,  supplying  21  per  cent 
of  the  shipments  of  the  state.  Hence  the  two  leading  counties  fur- 
nished 92  per  cent  of  the  total  California  shipments.  During  the 
following  years  the  proportion  of  the  shipments  coming  from  these 
two  counties  never  fell  below  86  per  cent  and  amounted  to  92  per  cent 
in  1926.  The  proportion  coming  from  Santa  Cruz  County  shows  a 
slight  tendency  to  decrease  from  1920  to  1926,  while  Sonoma  County 
shows  an  increase  during  the  same  period. 

Carlot  shipments  from  the  other  counties  are  relatively  unim- 
portant. Monterey  County,  a  part  of  the  Watsonville  district,  shipped 
60  carlots  in  1920  and  208  in  1923.  Napa  County,  a  part  of  the 
Sebastopol  district,  shipped  as  high  as  90  carlots  one  year.  In  general, 
yields  are  rather  light  in  the  other  counties  and  the  apples  are  mostly 
hauled  by  truck,  consumed  locally,  or  made  into  by-products.  Truck 
hauling  and  local  consumption  are  especially  important  in  the  dis- 
position of  the  apples  in  those  counties  having  orchards  near  the 
large  cities. 


54 


UNIVERSITY    OP    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Truck  shipments  have  increased  rapidly  the  past  few  years.  For 
1926  these  data  are  fairly  complete,  and  show  the  equivalent  of  410 
carlots  hauled  by  truck  from  the  Watsonville  district  and  95  carlots 
from  the  Sebastopol  district.  A  carlot  was  considered  equivalent  to 
756  boxes. 

TABLE  23 

Carlot  Shipments  of  Apples  by  Counties,  1920-1926* 


Counties 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

District  No.  4: 

Monterey 

Napa 

60 

148 

29 

72 

1 

122 

3,296 

1,060 

2 

130 

55 

130 

12 

50 

2,917 

1,152 

208 

90 

133 

17 

49 

3,736 

2,124 

28 

4 

31 

132 
35 
60 
12 
61 
3,127 
1,321 

103 

27 
8 

87 
68 

San  Benito 

104 
5 

56 

3,175 

945 

33 

2 

Santa  Clara 

29 

1,775 

437 

73 

Santa  Cruz.... 

3,072 

Sonoma 

1,603 

District  No.  5: 

Butte 

1 

15 

10 
4 

2 

1 

13 

34 

6 

Sutter 

11 

15 

District  No.  5a: 

Fresno 

1 

Kern 

3 

23 

7 

5 

108 
38 

12 
21 
44 

10 

11 

103 
30 

36 
43 
35 

20 

14 

32 
28 

23 

1 

60 
35 

1 

District  No.  6: 

Inyo 

15 
4 

16 
44 

22 

16 

78 

Tuolumne 

District  No.  8: 

49 
11 

79 
217 

19 

20 
14 

2 
11 

**************** 
Others 

10 

4,477 

5,089 

4,698 

6,698 

4,882 

2,536 

5,109 

*  Calendar  years. 

Data  for  1920-1922  from  U.S.  Dept.  Agr.  Statis.  Bui.  8:2,  3;  for  1924  and 
1925  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Statis.  Bui.  19:2,  3;  for  1926  from  Harris,  Homer  A. 
Summary  of  carlot  shipments  of  important  fruits  and  vegetables  in  California, 
Arizona,  and  Nevada.     (Mimeo.)     U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Fruits  and  Vegetable  Division. 


APPLE    SURVEY 

During  May  and  June,  1927,  a  survey  was  made  of  the  Watsonville 
and  Sebastopol  districts.  This  was  planned  and  financed  by  the 
United  States  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  and  the  University 
of  California,  Division  of  Agricultural  Economics.  Data  were  secured 
from  public  agencies  and  from  marketing  organizations  regarding  the 
production  by  varieties  and  grades,  shipments,  destinations,  and  prices 
by  varieties,  grades,  and  sizes,  of  a  fair  proportion  of  the  total  ship- 
ments in  each  area.     Records  were  obtained  for  the  years  1924,  1925, 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY 


55 


and  1926  in  all  cases,  and  for  1922  and  1923  in  one  case.  Some 
shippers  had  compiled  certain  statistical  data  regarding  shipments 
and  prices  over  a  longer  period.  Permission  to  use  some  of  these 
compilations  was  secured  in  some  instances.  Since  this  material  was 
confidential,  the  specific  source  is  not  given  below  each  table  as  is  done 
where  material  was  obtained  from  public  sources.  The  results  of  this 
survey  are  summarized  in  the  following  pages. 


APPLE   PRODUCTION    IN  THE  WATSONVILLE   DISTRICT   BY 
VARIETIES   AND   GRADES 

The  production  of  apples  in  the  Watsonville  district  in  1926  is 
typical  of  other  years  so  far  as  the  relative  quantities  of  the  different 
varieties  is  concerned,  although  the  total  production  and  the  propor- 
tion shipped  loose  were  above  the  average.     The  relative  amounts  of 

TABLE  24 
Apple  Production  in  Watsonville  District  by  Varieties  and  Grades,  1926 


Grades 

Variety 

Fancy 
boxes 

"C"  grade 
boxes 

Packed 

unclassified 

boxes 

Loose 

unclassified 

boxes 

Total 

boxes 

658,928 
66,412 
35,528 

7,741 
4,470 

98,297 
6,786 
2,505 

576,274 

716,817 

44,879 

16,900 

101,699 

1,341,240 

794,485 

82,912 

Red  Pearmains 

16,900 

14,304 

21 

2,144 

118,168 

Total 

775,172 

12,232 

109,732 

1,456,569 

2,353,705* 

*  In  addition  517,000  boxes  were  in  local  storage,  not  yet  inspected. 

Data   compiled   from  records   of   C.   H.  Beasley,  Bureau  of  Standardization, 
State  Dept.  of  Agriculture,  Watsonville. 


the  different  grades  varies  somewhat  from  year  to  year.  During 
recent  years  there  has  been  an  upward  trend  in  the  proportion  of 
apples  sold  in  loose  boxes  and  a  downward  trend  in  the  proportion 
packed. 

Table  24  shows  that  of  the  2,353,705  boxes5  of  apples  produced  in 
1926  1,341,240,  or  57  per  cent,  were  Yellow  Newtowns,  and  794,485, 
or  33.8  per  cent,  were  Yellow  Bellflowers.  The  remaining  9.2  per 
cent  were  made  up  of  White  and  Red  Pearmains  and  miscellaneous 


5  Packed  boxes   contain  approximately  42   pounds   net   and   loose   boxes   35 
pounds  net. 


56  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 

varieties.  The  Newtowns  had  the  largest  quantity  and  the  highest 
proportion  of  apples  packed.  Nearly  one-half  were  graded  'fancy,' 
less  than  1  per  cent  'C,'  7.3  per  cent  were  'packed  unclassified,'  and 
the  remaining  43  per  cent  of  the  boxes  were  '  loose  unclassified. '  Only 
8.4  per  cent  of  the  Bellflowers  were  packed  as  'fancy,'  and  90  per 
cent  were  'loose  unclassified.'  Of  the  White  Pearmains,  43  per  cent 
were  packed  'fancy'  and  54  per  cent  'loose  unclassified.'  Of  the 
miscellaneous  12  per  cent  were  packed  'fancy'  and  86  per  cent  'loose 
unclassified.'  Taking  all  of  the  varieties  together,  775,172  boxes  were 
packed  and  graded  'fancy,'  12,232  boxes  were  'C,'  109,732  boxes  were 
'packed  unclassified,'  and  1,456,569  were  'loose  unclassified.'  In  terms 
of  percentages,  33.0  per  cent  were  packed  'fancy,'  0.5  per  cent  packed 
'C,'  4.7  per  cent  'packed  unclassified,'  and  61.8  per  cent  were  'loose 
unclassified. ' 

The  total  production  of  2,353,705  boxes  would  make  up  approxi- 
mately 3,100  carlots  at  756  boxes  to  the  car. 


PRIMARY  DESTINATION  OF  APPLES  FROM  THE  WATSONVILLE 

DISTRICT 

A  fairly  typical  distribution  of  the  fresh  apples  shipped  from  the 
Watsonville  district  is  shown  by  the  records  of  all  shipments  from 
August  to  December,  1926  (table  25  and  fig.  15).  During  this  period 
2,744  carlots  were  shipped,  of  which  2,426  (88.4  per  cent)  went  to 
cities  in  California,  and  316  (11.6  per  cent)  went  to  cities  outside  of 
California.  More  than  one-half  (1,441  carlots)  of  the  total  number 
of  carlots  were  shipped  to  Los  Angeles,  and  579  (21.1  per  cent)  of 
the  total  went  to  San  Francisco.  An  unusually  large  proportion  of 
the  August  shipments  (72.5  per  cent)  went  to  Los  Angeles.  None  of 
the  other  California  cities  received  more  than  3  per  cent  of  the  total 
shipments.  Nine  cities  besides  Los  Angeles  and  San  Francisco  received 
more  than  ten  carlots  each. 

Fourteen  cities  outside  of  California  received  carlot  shipments  of 
apples  from  the  Watsonville  district.  Of  these  New  York  received 
269,  or  approximately  10  per  cent  of  the  total  shipments  from  the 
district.  Phoenix,  Arizona,  and  Reno,  Nevada,  received  14  and  11 
carlots,  respectively.  The  remaining  cities  each  received  five  carlots 
or  less. 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY 


57 


TABLE  25 

Number  of  Carlots  Shipped  from  Watsonville  District  and  Primary 
Destinations,  August  to  December,  1926 


Destinations  within  California 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Total 

341 
25 

358 

219 

12 

16 

21 

17 

8 

5 

5 

2 

6 

2 

2 

1 

460 

252 

51 

33 

14 

19 

17 

13 

7 

4 

2 

2 

1 

174 

72 

14 

22 

13 

3 

13 

3 

1 

4 

3 

1 

108 
11 

1,441 

579* 

77 

2 
5 
11 
2 
2 
2 
1 

3 
6 
3 
5 

76 

Fresno 

59 

San  Diego 

53 

Stockton 

45 

Sacramento 

23 

2 
3 

17 

14 

11 

Taft 

5 

3 

Tulare 

1 

2 

Tracy 

I 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

12 

2 

17 

393 

677 

877 

336 

143 

2.426 

Destinations  outside  of  California 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Total 

New  York 

64 
5 

166 
6 
9 
2 
2 
2 
1 

34 
3 
2 
2 

3 

2 

269* 

14 

11 

1 
2 

1 

5 

Tampa,  Fla 

4 

3 

1 

1 

3 

1 
1 

1 

Rock  Springs,  Wyo 

1 

Globe,  Ariz 

1 
1 

1 

1 

Elko,  Nev 

1 

j 

1 

1 

Total  shipped  outside  of  state  of 
California 

75 

191 

42 

4 

4 

316 

*  Some  of  these  were  exported. 

Data  compiled   from  records   of  C.   H.   Beasley,  Bureau   of  Standardization, 
State  Dept.  of  Agriculture,  Watsonville. 


58 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


•V  o 


BUL.  445]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS   OF   THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY  59 


SHIPMENTS  AND   PRICES  OF   PACKED   APPLES   BY   MONTHS, 
WATSONVILLE  DISTRICT 

Data  obtained  from  representative  shippers  in  the  Watsonville 
district  on  shipments  and  prices  of  packed  apples  by  months  for  the 
years  1922  to  1926  are  presented  in  table  26.  The  shipments  comprise 
between  5  and  10  per  cent  of  the  total  packed  apples  shipped  from  the 
district  each  year.  The  prices  represent  the  weighted  average  net 
prices  received  by  the  shippers  at  their  shipping  points. 

Shipments  reached  their  peak  in  October  in  three  years  out  of  the 
five.  The  other  two  years  the  peaks  of  shipments  were  reached  in 
September  and  November,  respectively.  During  1922  and  1923  prices 
increased  fairly  consistently  from  September  to  March.  In  1924,  how- 
ever, prices  declined  after  November,  and  in  1926  there  was  a  steady 
decline  from  August  to  January.  It  is  probable  that  the  trouble  with 
internal  browning  of  the  stored  Yellow  Newtowns  may  have  caused 
the  decline  in  prices  of  the  1926  crop.  Some  variations  may,  of  course, 
be  expected  in  these  prices  owing  to  the  size  of  the  sample,  although 
in  a  general  way  it  undoubtedly  reflects  what  the  bulk  of  the  packed 
apples  sold  for. 

The  total  number  of  boxes,  however,  does  not  necessarily  reflect 
the  size  of  the  crop.  This  can  be  judged  better  by  the  shipments  from 
Santa  Cruz  and  Monterey  counties  shown  in  table  23.  Comparing 
these  with  the  weighted  average  prices  for  each  year  given  in  table  26, 
we  note  a  fairly  close  inverse  correlation  between  price  and  shipments. 
Thus  in  1923  the  shipments  in  Santa  Cruz  County  amounted  to  3,736 
carlots — the  highest  during  the  last  seven  years,  and  the  price  was 
$0.84  per  box — the  lowest  of  all  years  shown  in  table  26.  In  1925 
only  1,775  cars  were  shipped  from  Santa  Cruz  County  and  the  price 
was  $1.41.  The  years  1922  and  1926  had  approximately  average  ship- 
ments and  average  prices. 


TREND    IN    QUANTITIES   AND    PROPORTIONS    OF    PACKED    YELLOW 
NEWTOWNS  AND  YELLOW  BELLFLOWERS 

During  the  last  few  years  there  has  been  a  marked  decrease  in  the 
proportion  of  apples  in  the  Watsonville  district  that  have  been  put  up 
in  packed  boxes.  Only  in  1926,  however,  has  this  been  so  marked  in 
the  case  of  Yellow  Newtowns.  This  is  shown  in  table  27.  Thus  from 
1921  to  1924  the  quantities  of  Newtowns  packed  were  well  over  one 
million  boxes  each  year  and  the  proportion  of  the  crop  that  was 
packed  never  fell  below  84  per  cent  of  the  commercial  crop,  or  that 


60 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  26 

Monthly  Apple  Shipments,  in  Packed  Boxes,  by  Eepresentative  Shippers 
in  Watsonville  District,  and  Prices  Eeceived 


Year 

Month 

Number  of  boxes 

Price  per  box* 

3,064 
3,554 
19,108 
25,934 
10,726 
694 
2,293 

$0.94 
0.97 
1.02 
0.99 
0.96 
1.05 
1.08 

1922 

February 

Total 

65,373 

$0.99 

August 

9,858 
16,814 
945 
2,494 
5,245 
4,138 
383 

$0.82 
0.69 
0.87 
1.09 
1.05 
1.08 
1.15 

September 

October 

November 

1923 

December 

January 

March 

Total 

39,877 

$0.84 

August 

5,424 
8,190 
25,133 
21,468 
9,633 
1,952 

$1.15 
1.13 
1.16 
1.35 
1.20 
1.12 

September 

October 

1924 

November 

December 

January 

Total 

71,800 

$1.22 

August 

212 
3,488 
7,316 
2,367 

$1.62 
1.51 
1.34 
1.44 

1925 

October 

November 

Total 

13,383 

$1.41 

August 

1,837 
6,817 
11,627 
2,408 
4,938 
3,334 
435 

$1.11 
1.06 
1.03 
0.97 
0.92 
0.77 
0.81 

September 

October* 

November 

1926 

December 

January 

February 

Total 

31,396 

$0.99 

*  Price  to  shippers — not  net  to  growers. 

Data  compiled  from  records  of  representative  shippers. 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY 


61 


intended  for  consumption  as  fresh  apples.  In  1925  the  total  apple 
crop  in  California  was  short  and  practically  all  (98.5  per  cent)  of  the 
commercial  crop  of  Newtowns  were  packed.  The  next  year  (1926) 
only  57  per  cent  of  the  Newtowns  were  packed  and  43  per  cent  were 
put  up  in  loose  boxes. 

TABLE  27 

Packed  and  Loose  Boxes  of  Yellow  Newtowns  and  Yellow  Bellflowers 
in  the  Watsonville  District,  1921-1926 


Boxes,  packed  and  loose 

Percentages,  packed  and  loose 

Newtons 

Bellflowers 

Newtowns 

Bellflowers 

Year 

Packed 

Loose 

Packed 

Loose 

Packed 

Loose 

Packed 

Loose 

1921 

1,154,619 

54,494 

1,035,083 

80,126 

95.5 

4.5 

92.8 

7.2 

1922 

1,608,132 

0 

634,846 

0 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

0.0 

1923 

1,450,664 

151,270 

557,705 

558,108 

90.5 

9.5 

50.0 

50.0 

1924 

1,200,950 

223,992 

250,487 

505,752 

84.3 

15.7 

33.1 

66.9 

1925 

714,593 

10,821 

51,482 

355,509 

98.5 

1.5 

12.7 

87.3 

1926 

764,966 

576,274 

77,668 

716,817 

57.0 

43.0 

9.7 

90.3 

Data  compiled  from  records  of  C.  H.  Beasley,  Bureau  of  Standardization, 
State  Dept.  of  Agriculture,  Watsonville. 

The  Yellow  Bellflowers  in  1921  comprised  slightly  over  one  million 
packed  boxes  and  80,126  loose  boxes.  In  other  words  nearly  93  per 
cent  of  the  commercial  crop  was  packed.  In  1923  the  number  of 
packed  and  loose  boxes  of  Bellflowers  were  practically  equal.  In  1924 
one-third  of  the  Bellflowers  were  packed.  The  proportion  packed 
dropped  to  12.7  per  cent  in  1925  and  9.7  per  cent  in  1926. 


PRICES   OF   PRINCIPAL  VARIETIES   OF   APPLES    SHIPPED    FROM 
THE  WATSONVILLE   DISTRICT 

The  Newtowns  and  Bellflowers  make  up  approximately  90  per  cent 
of  the  apples  grown  in  the  Watsonville  district.  Table  28  shows  the 
prices  of  these  two  varieties  to  shippers  f.o.b.  Watsonville,  and  the 
amounts  included  in  the  survey  that  were  shipped  in  packed  boxes 
and  in  loose  boxes,  from  1922  to  1926.  It  does  not  include  those  placed 
in  cold  storage,  which  comprised  both  packed  and  loose  apples,  and 
amounted  to  approximately  as  much  as  the  quantities  of  packed 
apples. 

The  quantities  of  apples  shown  in  table  28  on  which  prices  were 
obtained  in  the  survey  do  not  in  all  cases  represent  the  proportions 
in  which  these  varieties  and  grades  are  produced.    Table  27  gives  the 


62 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


latter  information  accurately.  The  quantities  included  in  the  survey 
in  table  28  are  given  to  show  the  size  of  the  sample  on  which  prices 
were  obtained. 

The  highest  average  price  received  for  apples  from  1922  to  1926 
was  in  1925,  the  year  of  the  smallest  crop.  In  that  year  the  price  per 
box  for  Newtowns  was  $1.38  and  for  Bellflowers  $1.59.  The  price  per 
ton  in  loose  boxes  for  Newtowns  was  $53.50  and  for  Bellflowers  $59.50. 
This  was  the  only  year  in  which  a  higher  price  was  received  for  Bell- 
flowers  than  for  Newtowns.     The   average   prices  for  the   five-year 

TABLE  28 

Comparison  of  Quantities  and  Prices  of  Yellow  Newtowns  and 
Yellow  Bellflowers 


Packed 

Loose 

Year 

Yellow  Newtowns 

Yellow  Bellflowers 

Yellow  Newtowns 

Yellow  Bellflowers 

Boxes 

Price 
per  box 

Boxes 

Price 
per  box 

Tons 

Price 
per  ton 

Tons 

Price 
per  ton 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

57,425 
13,805 
50,373 
11,447 

25,778 

$0.99 
1.07 
1.24 
1.38 
1.07 

8,530 
20,764 
11,604 
1,247 
2,114 

$0.95 
0.78 
1.13 
1.59 
0.99 

92.11 

501.79 

734.86 

312.77 

1,268.23 

$33.30 
34.40 
51.10 
53.50 
30.20 

234.08 
685.31 
633.11 
234.70 
535  12 

$30  60 
25.80 
41.70 
59.50 
26.80 

Average 

SI.  15 

$1.09 

$40  50 

$36.88 

Data  compiled  from  records  of  representative  shippers.     Prices  are  net  to 
shippers  f.o.b.  Watsonville. 


period  were  $1.15  a  box  for  Newtowns  and  $1.09  for  Bellflowers.  The 
average  prices  for  loose  apples  were  $40.50  a  ton  for  Newtowns  and 
$36.88  for  Bellflowers. 

Price  to  Growers. — Commission  and  packing  charges  of  shippers 
in  the  Watsonville  district  amount  to  from  $0.40  to  $0.50  per  packed 
box,  which  amount  must  be  deducted  from  the  net  price  to  shipper  in 
order  to  get  the  price  to  the  grower  for  his  apples  delivered  at  the 
local  packing  house.  This  means  that  the  average  price  to  the  grower 
for  the  last  five  years  was  not  over  $0.75  per  packed  box  of  Newtowns 
and  not  more  than  $0.69  per  packed  box  of  Bellflowers. 

The  shipper's  charges  for  handling  loose  apples  has  been  from 
$0.20  to  $0.25  per  loose  box  or  from  $11.00  to  $14.00  a  ton.  This 
means  that  the  grower  received,  on  an  average  for  the  past  five  years, 
not  more  than  $29.50  a  ton  of  Newtowns,  and  not  more  than  $25.88 
a  ton  for  Bellflowers. 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS   OF   THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY 


63 


APPLE    PRODUCTION    IN    THE    SEBASTOPOL    DISTRICT    BY 
VARIETIES  AND  GRADES 

The  total  production  of  apples  in  the  Sebastopol  district  in  1926 
as  shown  in  table  29  is  1,232,708  boxes,  or,  at  756  boxes  to  a  carlot, 
the  production  would  be  equivalent  to  1,630  carlots.  According  to 
table  23,  1,601  carlots  of  fresh  apples  were  shipped  by  rail  from 
Sonoma  County  in  1926.  In  addition  207  carlots  of  dried  apples  were 
shipped  from  northern  California  that  year,  most  of  which  came  from 
the  Sebastopol  district. 

TABLE  29 
Apple  Production  in  Sebastopol  District  by  Varieties  and  Grades,  1926 


Variety 

Fancy 

Choice 

Packed 
unclassified 

Loose 
unclassified 

Total 

Gravensteins 

Others 

boxes 

915,983 

48,308 

boxes 

53,418 

323 

boxes 
25,943 
15,769 

boxes 

94,939 

78,025 

boxes 
1,090,283 
142,425 

Total 

964,291 

53,741 

41,712 

172,964 

1,232,708 

Data  compiled  from  records  of  C.  H.  Beasley,  Bureau  of  Standardization, 
State  Dept.  of  Agriculture,  Watsonville. 

Of  the  total  1,630  carlots  of  fresh  apples  in  the  Sebastopol  district 
nearly  90  per  cent  were  Gravensteins,  and  practically  75  per  cent  were 
packed  and  graded  '  fancy. '  Of  the  total  Gravensteins,  as  shown  in 
table  29,  84  per  cent  were  packed  and  graded  'fancy,'  4.9  per  cent 
were  packed  and  graded  'C,'  2.4  per  cent  were  packed  and  graded 
'unclassified,'  and  8.7  per  cent  were  not  packed. 

The  other  varieties  of  apples  have  been  grouped  under  'others'  in 
table  29.  Only  34  per  cent  of  these  were  packed  and  graded  'fancy,' 
less  than  1  per  cent  graded  'C,'  11  per  cent  'unclassified,'  and  nearly 
55  per  cent  were  not  packed. 


DISTRIBUTION  OF  GRAVENSTEIN  APPLES  FROM  THE  SEBASTOPOL 

DISTRICT 

Records  of  carlot  shipments  of  fresh  Gravenstein  apples  by  final 
destinations  were  made  available  by  shippers  in  the  Sebastopol  dis- 
trict. The  twenty-four  cities  receiving  the  largest  number  of  carlots 
from  1923  to  1926  are  shown  in  table  30.  For  1926  the  distribution 
is  also  shown  in  figure  15.  In  addition  to  the  rail  shipments  a  con- 
siderable amount  of  shipping  to  nearby  points  such  as  San  Francisco 
and  Oakland  is  done  by  trucks.  These  truck  shipments  in  1926  were 
equivalent  to  approximately  95  carlots. 


64 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 


It  will  be  noted  in  studying  table  30  that  the  number  of  carlots 
of  Gravenstein  apples  going  to  the  same  city  varies  considerably  from 
year  to  year.  The  variations  are  caused  partly  by  the  size  of  the 
Gravenstein  apple  crop  and  partly  by  the  quantity  of  other  fruits 

TABLE  30 

Distribution  of  Gravenstein"  Apples  from  Sebastopol  District 

by  Important  Cities 

(Carlots) 


City 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

25 
101 
94 
42 
14 
13 
45 
10 
23 
12 
170 
34 

4 

6 

373* 

12 

34 

18 

4 
12 
22 
31 

5 
16 

9 

17 
117 

6 
14 

4 
26 
15 
12 

4 
98 

9 

6 

32 

358* 

4 

3 

0 

5 

4 
20 
22 

9 

2 

7 

21 
1 
1 
3 
5 
1 
3 
0 

42 
0 
0 
4 

80 
1 
0 
1 
1 
0 
4 

13 
3 
4 

8 

85 

Chicago 

135 

Cleveland 

20 

Dallas 

7 

Denver 

8 

Detroit 

47 

Ft.  Worth 

9 

Houston 

12 

Little  Rock 

7 

133 

Memphis 

15 

Milwaukee 

13 

Montreal 

12 

New  York 

251 

Oklahoma  City 

6 

Philadelphia 

20 

Pittsburg 

18 

Phoenix 

7 

Portland 

6 

San  Antonio 

23 

San  Francisco 

13 

Tampa 

14 

Waco 

5 

Total 

1,120 

795 

197 

874 

Total   carlots   shipped 
from  Sebastopol  dis- 
trict  

1,551 
72.3 

1,050 

75.7 

247 

79.8 

1,211 

Per  cent  of  total  ship- 
ped to  the  above  24 
cities 

72.2 

*  Some  of  these  were  exported. 
Data  compiled  from  records  of  shippers  from  the  Sebastopol  district. 

available  from  other  areas.  Chicago,  for  example,  received  94  carlots 
of  Gravensteins  from  the  Sebastopol  district  in  1923,  117  in  1924,  21 
in  1925,  and  135  in  1926.  The  low  receipts  in  1925  were  typical  of 
all  of  the  cities,  especially  those  farthest  from  the  point  of  production, 
because  of  the  small  crop.  The  variations  in  receipts  in  other  years, 
however,  must  have  been  due  to  other  causes.    The  twenty-four  cities 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY 


65 


shown  in  table  30  received  approximately  three-fourths  of  the  total 
carlot  shipments  from  the  Sebastopol  district,  varying  from  79.8  per 
cent  in  1925  to  72.2  per  cent  in  1926. 

The  number  of  cities  in  the  United  States  and  Canada  to  which 
one  or  more  carlots  of  Gravenstein  apples  were  shipped  from  the 

TABLE  31 
Number  of  Cities  Beceiving  Gravenstein"  Apples  from  the  Sebastopol  District 


1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

Cities  in  United   States 
outside  of  California ... 

Cities  in  California 

Cities  in  Canada 

102 
16 
11 

112 
15 
11 

40 
10 
3 

124 
11 
9 

Total    cities    in    United 
States  and  Canada 

129 

138 

53 

144 

Data  compiled  from  records  of  shippers  from  the  Sebastopol  district. 

Sebastopol  district  is  shown  in  table  31.  This  indicates  that  the 
number  of  cities  in  the  United  States  outside  of  California  receiving 
Gravenstein  apples  was  124  in  1926,  compared  with  102  in  1923,  when 
the  total  shipments  were  28  per  cent  higher.  The  number  of  cities 
reached  in  1926  was  higher  than  in  any  of  the  previous  three  years, 


TABLE  32 

Total  Carlots  of  Gravensteins  and  Proportion  that  Are  Shipped  to 

Points  in  California 


1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

Total  carlots  shipped 

Carlots  shipped  to  points 

1,551  1 

272 

17.5 

1,050 
141 

13.5 

247 
85 

34.4 

1,211 
174 

Percentage  of  total  ship- 
ped to  points  in  Cali- 
fornia  

14.4 

Data  compiled  from  records  of  shippers  from  the  Sebastopol  district. 

the  second  highest  being  in  1924  when  112  cities  were  reached.  In 
spite  of  the  apparent  wide  distribution  in  1926  the  prices  were  lower 
than  in  the  previous  three  years.  The  number  of  cities  receiving 
carlots  in  California  and  in  Canada  declined  slightly  from  1923  to 
1926. 

The  total  number  of  carlots  shipped  from  1923  to  1926,  and  the 
number  and  proportion  shipped  to  points  in  California  are  shown  in 


66 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


table  32.  The  heaviest  shipment  occurred  in  1923  when  1,551  carlots 
were  shipped ;  272  carlots,  or  17.5  per  cent  of  the  total,  went  to  points 
in  California.  In  1925,  only  247  carlots  were  shipped.  Of  these,  85 
carlots  or  34.4  per  cent  of  the  total,  went  to  points  within  the  state. 
During  years  of  normal  crops  from  one-seventh  to  one-sixth  of  the 
Gravensteins  shipped  remained  in  the  state.  During  the  short  year 
(1925)  approximately  one-third  of  those  shipped  remained  in  the  state. 


PRICE  OF  GRAVENSTEIN  APPLES   BY  SIZES  AND   GRADES 

Prices  were  obtained  from  shippers  on  two  sizes  of  both  '  fancy ' 
and  '  C '  grades.  These  are  summarized  from  1920  to  1926  in  table  33 
and  figure  16.     The  'fancy'  150  and  larger  consistently  brought  the 

TABLE  33 

Net  Price  to  Shippers  per  Packed  Box  of  Gravenstein  Apples 

F.O.B.  Sebastopol 


Fancy 

"C" 

?rade 

Year 

150  and 
larger 

163  and 
smaller 

150  and 
larger 

163  and 
smaller 

1920 

$2.28 

$2.20 

$1.71 

$1.35 

1921 

2.27 

2.15 

1.72 

1.50 

1922 

1.02 

0.70 

0.81 

0.73 

1923 

1.28 

1.23 

0.94 

0.94 

1924 

1.70 

1.23 

1  54 

1.11 

1925 

2.51 

2.32 

1.99 

1.99 

1926 

0.94 

0.94 

0.89 

0.89 

Data  compiled  from  records  of  representative  shippers. 

highest  price.  The  'fancy'  163  and  smaller  brought  the  next  highest 
price  each  year  except  in  1922  and  1924,  when  the  'C  grade,  150  and 
larger,  brought  next  to  the  highest  price.  During  four  years  out  of 
the  seven  the  'C  grade,  163  and  smaller,  brought  the  lowest  price. 
During  the  other  three  years  this  size  brought  the  same  price  as  the 
150  and  larger  'C  '-grade  apple. 


PRODUCTION   AND    PRICES   OF   GRAVENSTEIN   APPLES 
SEBASTOPOL  DISTRICT 


N   THE 


The  production  of  Gravenstein  apples  in  the  Sebastopol  district, 
not  including  the  small  production  around  Sonoma,  Napa,  and  Healds- 
burg,  is  shown  from  1912  to  1926  in  table  34  and  figure  17.  The  pro- 
duction increased  rapidly  from  1912  to  1923,  almost  doubling  every 
two  years  in  some  cases.     Thus  in  1913  the  production  was  42,000 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  APPLE   INDUSTRY 


67 


Net  Price  per  Packed  Box  to  Shippers  of  Gravenstein  Apples  for 
Sebastopol,  1920-1926 
Price 


j&SO  /9Zt  J9Z2  &Z3  /924  /92S  /9Z(S 

Fig.  16. — Illustrating  table  33.  'Fancy'  packed  apples,  150  and  larger,  con- 
sistently brought  the  highest  price.  The  'fancy,'  163  and  smaller,  usually 
brought  the  next  highest  price  except  in  1922  and  1924,  when  the  large  size 
of  'C '-grade  apples  brought  next  to  the  highest  price. 

boxes,  in  1915  it  was  79,800  boxes,  in  1917  it  was  152,400  boxes,  and 
in  1919  it  was  322,400  boxes.  Four  years  later,  in  1923,  a  total  of 
1,172,500  boxes  were  produced.  Since  1923  several  years  of  low  yields 
have  occurred.  Thus  in  1924  production  fell  to  563,000  boxes,  and 
in  1925  to  126,000  boxes — almost  a  crop  failure.  Jn  1926  the  produc- 
tion again  went  up  to  1,134,000  boxes,  fairly  near  the  1923  record. 

Prices  during  the  pre-war  period  varied  from  $1.00  to  $1.50,  then 
rose  rapidly  to  $2.00  a  box  and  above,  and  remained  high  until  1922, 
when  the  price  dropped  to  $1.02.     It  has  been  pointed  out  that  the 


68 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION 


railroad  strike  in  1922  brought  the  price  down  to  a  lower  point  than 
was  justified  by  the  supply.6  The  supply  of  1,172,500  boxes  in  1923, 
which  was  64  per  cent  greater  than  the  1922  crop,  brought  a  price 
of  $1.28,  or  $0.26  above  the  price  of  the  1922  crop.  In  1924  the  crop 
was  short,  amounting  to  only  563,000  boxes.  The  price  rose  that  year 
to  $1.70.  The  next  year  the  crop  was  only  126,000  boxes  and  the  price 
reached  the  highest  point  of  the  whole  period,  $2.51  per  box.     The 

TABLE  34 

GltAVENSTEIN    APPLE    PRODUCTION    AND   PRICE   PER   BOX   IN    SEBASTOPOL    DISTRICT,* 

1912-1925 


Year 

Production 
in  boxes 

Price  t 
per  box 

JulyJ  index 
number  (all 
commodity) 

Purchasing 
power 
per  box 

1912 

53,100 

$1.09 

101 

$1.08 

1913 

42,000 

1.53 

102 

1.50 

1914 

77,400 

1.01 

99 

1.02 

1915 

79,800 

1.07 

102 

1.05 

1916 

96,200 

1.16 

125 

0.93 

1917 

152,400 

1.48 

191 

0.78 

1918 

194,400 

1.98 

200 

0.99 

1919 

322,400 

2.33 

216 

1.08 

1920 

400,200 

2.28 

245 

0.93 

1921 

366,500 

2.27 

144 

1.58 

1922 

713,600 

1.02 

158 

0.65 

1923 

1,172,500 

1.28 

153 

0.84 

1924 

563,000 

1.70 

150 

1.13 

1925 

126,000 

2.51 

163 

1.54 

1926 

1,134,000 

0.94 

153 

0.61 

1927§ 

680,400 

2.25 

147 

1.43 

*  Sonoma,  Napa,  and  Healdsburg  not  included. 

1  Net  price  received  by  shippers  per  packed  box  of  Gravensteins,  fancy  4-tier. 

t  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  index  number  converted  to  1910-1914  base.    U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Supplement 
to  Agriculture  Situation  June,  1925,  and  current  issues. 
§  Preliminary  figures  for  1927. 

Data  compiled  from  records  of  representative  shippers  by  H.  F.  Gould  of 
the  California  Development  Association. 


large  production  of  1926  was  again  accompanied  by  a  drop  in  price. 
Preliminary  figures  for  1927  indicate  a  reversal  of  1926,  that  is,  a  low 
crop  with  higher  prices. 

Because  of  the  change  in  the  value  of  the  dollar  during  the  war 
period  it  is  impossible  to  study  the  correlation  of  production  and  price 
without  first  correcting  for  this  change  in  the  value  of  our  currency. 
This  is  done  by  dividing  the  price  by  the  July  index  number  (fourth 
column,  table  31).  The  quotients  are  shown  in  the  fifth  column  headed 
purchasing  power,  and  represent  the  buying  power  of  Gravenstein 


o  From  a  personal  interview  with  Mr.   G.  E.  Burlingame,   secretary   of  the 
Sebastopol  Chamber  of  Commerce. 


Bul.  445] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY 


69 


Gravenstein  Apple  Production  and  Purchasing  Power  in  Sebastopol 
Districts,  1912-1926 

TfaotAsends 

Boxes 


JOOO 

&oo 
goo 

700 
600 
50O 

400 
300 


eoo 


IOO 
90 
80 
70 
60 
30 

40 
SO 

20 


IO 


J 

Pr 

oc/cscrf-t'on 

/ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

f 

\ 

f 

\ 

«^^ 

/ 
/ 

\ 

/ 

* 

> 

\ 

y 

*K 

f 

\ 

/ 

\ 

*v, 

y 

\ 

> 

\r 

V 

/ 

\ 

y 

\ 

/ 

&<. 

jrchi 

os/nc 

f    Po 

«,&$ 

f 

\ 

< 

/ 

\ 

/ 

Cen+s 
Go* 


too 

QO 
80 
70 


60 
SO 

4C 
SO 

zo 


to 


/9/S        /3         /4  /5        10  17         18         /9        ZO        Zl         ZZ       23         Z4        Z5        26 

Fig.  17. — Illustrating  table  34.  Production  of  Gravenstein  apples  in  the 
Sebastopol  district  increased  rapidly  from  1912  to  1923.  Purchasing  power  has 
generally  moved  in  the  opposite  direction  from  the  changes  in  production. 

apples  in  terms  of  the  four  hundred  or  more  commodities  used  in 
making  up  the  index  number.  The  purchasing  power  per  box  is  shown 
with  production  in  figure  17.  It  will  be  noted  that  while  the  prices 
during  the  war  seemed  high,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  relative  to  the 
average  of  the  most  important  commodities  they  remained  nearly  on 
a  level.  For  the  whole  period  from  1912  to  1926  there  is  a  slight 
downward  trend  in  the  purchasing  power. 

There  is  a  fairly  close  inverse  correlation  between  production  and 
purchasing  power  as  shown  in  figure  17.  That  is,  years  when  pro- 
duction increased  are  usually  accompanied  by  decreased  purchasing 


70 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


power.  The  years  1918,  1910,  and  1923  are  exceptions  to  this  general 
tendency.  In  the  case  of  1918  and  1919  there  were  light  shipments 
of  early  apples  from  eastern  states  which  undoubtedly  helped  to  raise 
the  price  of  California  Gravensteins.  In  1923  shipments  in  July  and 
August  from  eastern  states  were  slightly  below  the  shipments  of  the 
previous  year,  and  in  addition  the  1922  price  was  probably  unusually 
low  because  of  the  railroad  strike.  Under  normal  conditions  of 
transportation  the  1922  price  would  probably  have  been  above  that 
of  1923.  In  that  case  there  would  have  been  a  decline  in  purchasing 
power  accompanying  the  increased  production. 

Net  Price  to  Grower. — The  cost  of  packing  apples  by  private 
shippers  or  cooperative  organizations  in  the  Sebastopol  district  during 
the  past  few  years  has  usually  varied  from  $0.50  to  $0.60  per  packed 
box.  This  amount  must  be  deducted  from  the  price  per  box  given  in 
table  34  in  order  to  get  the  price  per  box  to  the  grower  at  his  local 
shipping  point.  Thus  in  1926  the  net  price  to  the  shipper  was  $0.94, 
hence  the  price  to  the  grower  was  not  more  than  $0.44  per  packed 
box — a  price  so  low  as  to  discourage  future  production.  The  previous 
year  (1925)  the  growers  received  approximately  $2.00  per  packed  box, 
but  the  crop  yield  was  less  than  one-fourth  of  normal,  so  that  the 
returns  per  acre  were  exceedingly  low. 


SOURCE  OF   APPLES    RECEIVED    IN    CALIFORNIA   CITIES 

Unload  figures  by  states  of  origin  are  available  for  Los  Angeles 
and  San  Francisco  for  1926,  and  are  shown  in  table  35.  These  include 
only  rail  shipments  and  boat  shipments  converted  to  carlot  equiva- 
lents.   They  do  not  include  receipts  from  truck  hauling. 


TABLE  35 

Sources  of  Los  Angeles  and  San  Francisco  Shipped  Apples  in  1926 


State  from  which  shipped 

Los 
Angeles 

San 
Francisco 

California 

carlots 
1,921 
787 
278 
215 
207 
1 

carlots 
776 

Washington 

Idaho 

239 

1       :'     C 

1 
164 

Total 

3,409 

1,180 

Data  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bureau  of  Agr.  Econ.    Unloads  of  apples  in  thirty- 
six  cities  by  states  of  origin  during  1926.     Mimeo.  report  released  Feb.  1,  1927. 


BUL.  445]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY  71 

Ony  1,921  (56.3  per  cent)  out  of  a  total  of  3,409  carlots  unloaded 
at  Los  Angeles  in  1926  originated  within  California.  The  remaining 
43.7  per  cent  came  from  other  states.  Washington  supplied  787 
carlots,  or  23  per  cent  of  the  total  unloads ;  Idaho  supplied  278  carlots, 
Utah  215,  and  Oregon  207. 

San  Francisco  had  1,180  carlot  unloads  of  apples  of  which  Cali- 
fornia supplied  776,  or  practically  two-thirds  of  the  total.  Washing- 
ton supplied  239  carlots  of  apples  to  San  Francisco,  and  Oregon 
supplied  164  carlots. 


72  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION 


BIBLIOGRAPHY7 

i  Allen,  F.  W. 

1927.  Apple  growing  in  California.  California  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  425: 
1-55. 

2  Anthony,  R.  D.,  and  J.  H.  Waring. 

1922.  The  apple  industry  of  Pennsylvania.  Pennsylvania  Dept.  of  Agr. 
Gen.  Bui.  369:1-206. 

3  Beach,  S.  A.,  and  V.  A.  Clark. 

1904.     New  York  apples  in  storage.     New  York  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  248: 
92-110. 
*  Beach,  S.  A. 

1909.     Cold  storage  for  Iowa  apples.     Iowa  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  108:401- 
414. 
5  Brown,  G.  G. 

1921.  Hood  River  apple  orchard  management  with  special  reference  to 
yields,  grades,  and  value  of  fruits.  Oregon  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui. 
181:1-36. 


1926.  Apple  thinning  in  Hood  River  Valley.     Oregon  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Circ. 

76:1-10. 
7  Brown,  W.  S. 

1924.  Is  the  Pacific  Northwest  to  be  forced  out  of  apple  growing?     Annual 

Report  of  Oregon  Horticultural  Society  16:76-89. 
s  Card,  F.  W. 

1913.  '  Business  adjustments  which  the  Pennsylvania  fruit  grower  needs  to 

consider.     Amer.  Porno.  Soc.  Proc.  33:147-153. 
?  Chandler,  W.  H. 

1925.  Fruit  growing,     xv  +  777  p.     Houghton  Mifflin  Co.,  New  York. 
io  Clark,  A.  L. 

1920.     A  survey  of  the  important  commercial  peach  and  apple  sections  of 
New  Jersey.     New  Jersey  Dept.  Agr.  Circ.  34:1-31. 
ii  Corbett,  Roger  B. 

1927.  Some  economic  phases  of  the  fruit  industry  in  Rhode  Island.     Rhode 

Island  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  207:1-72. 
12  Craig,  John. 

1909.     Apple  orchard  survey  of  Niagara  County.     Cornell  Agr.   Exp.   Sta. 
Bui.  262:279-320. 


7  The  more  important  references  consulted  in  the  preparation  of  this  bulletin, 
in  addition  to  those  cited  in  connection  with  the  tables,  are  included  here. 
Reference  to  a  more  complete  bibliography  is  given  at  the  end  of  this  list. 


BUL.  445]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY  73 

13  Cummings,  M.B.,  and  P.  M.  Lombard. 

1915.     Farm  apple  storage.     Vermont  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  186:99-136. 

14  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Commerce,  Bur.  of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce. 

1913.     Markets  for  American  fruit.     Special  Consular  Report  62:1-54. 

is  Fischer,  Walter. 

1917.  South  American  markets  for  fresh  fruits.  U.  S.  Dept.  Com.,  Bur. 
of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce  Special  Agents  Series  131: 
1-163. 

i6  Fiske,  Geo.  B.,  and  R.  E.  Pailthorp. 

1926.     Marketing  western  boxed  apples.     U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Dept.  Bui.  1415 : 
1-96. 

17  Fiske,  G.  B. 

1926.  Marketing  barreled  apples.     U.S.  Dept.  Agr.  Dept.  Bui.  1416:1-99. 

is  Folger,  J.  C,  and  S.  M.  Thompson. 

1921.  The  commercial  apple  industry   of  North  America.     466  p.       The 

Macmillan  Co.,  New  York. 

is  Fraser,  Samuel. 

1924.     American  fruits.     888  p.     Orange  Judd  Pub.  Co.,  New  York. 

20  Fredell,  G.  Herbert. 

1927.  Carlot  distribution  of  Washington  apples.     Washington  Agr.  Exp. 

Sta.  Bui.  218:1-31. 

2i  Gardner,  V.  R. 

1927.  Varieties  and  locations  as  factors  in  apple  production.  Michigan 
Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Special  Bui.  161:1-45. 

22  Gould,  H.  P. 

1922.  Geography  of  apple  growing.     Amer.  Porno.  Soc.  Proc.  39:11-28. 

23  Green,  Laurenz. 

1913.  Cold  storage  for  Iowa  grown  apples.  Iowa  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui. 
144:364-378. 

24  Hartman,  Henry. 

1924.  Studies  relating  to  the  harvesting  and  storage  of  apples  and  pears. 

Oregon  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  206:13-14. 

25  Jefferson,  Lorian  P. 

1925.  The  costs  of  marketing  the  apple  crop  of  1923.     Massachusetts  Agr. 

Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  224:1-9. 


1927.     The  market  outlet  for  Massachusetts  apples.     Massachusetts  Agr. 
Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  231:1-40. 

2T  Kitchen,  C.  W.,  et  al. 

1921.     The  distribution  of  north-western  boxed  apples.     U.  S.  Dept.  Agr. 
Dept.  Bui.  935:1-27. 

28  Lewis,  C.  I.,  and  H.  A.  Vickers. 

1915.     Economics  of  apple  orcharding.     Oregon  Agr.  Exp.   Sta,  Bui.   132: 
1-104. 


74  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

29  Macpherson,  Hector. 

1924.  Some  problems  in  marketing  northwest  apples.     Oregon   Horticul- 

tural Society  Ann.  Kept.  16:87-177. 
so  Magness,  J.  R.,  et  al. 

1926.  The  ripening,  storage,  and  handling  of  apples.     U.  S.   Dept.   Agr. 

Dept.  Bui.  1406:1-64. 

si  Merchant,  Charles  H. 

1927.  An  economic  survey  of  the  apple  industry  in  Maine.     Maine  Agr. 

Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  339:149-199. 

32  McKay,  A.  W.,  et  al. 

1925.  Marketing  fruits  and  vegetables.     U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook  1925: 

680.    1926. 

33  Miller,  G.  H. 

1914.     Operating  costs  of  a  well-established  New  York  apple  orchard.     U.  S. 
Dept.  Agr.  Bui.  130:1-16. 

34  Moomaw,  Clarence,  and  Marjorie  L.  Franklin. 

1920.  Markets  for  American  fruits  in  China.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Dept. 
Circ.  146:1-27. 

35  Morris,  O.  M. 

1925.  Studies  in  apple   storage.     Washington   Agr.   Exp.  Sta.  Bui.   193: 

1-44. 
se  Morris,  O.  M.,  and  M.  D.  Armstrong. 

1926.  Washington    agriculture.      Washington    State    Col.    Ext.    Bui.    134 

(part  8):  1-94. 

37  Dept.  of  Farms  and  Markets  of  New  York,  Albany,  N.  Y. 

1922.  The  fruit  industry  in  New  York  State.  New  York  Dept.  Agr.  Bui. 
147:1-344. 

ss  Pailthorp,  R.  R.,  and  F.  S.  Kinsey. 

1925.  Packing  apples  in  boxes.    U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Farmers'  Bui.  1457:1-22. 

39  Potter,  G.  F.,  and  H.  A.  Rollins, 

1926.  Commercial    apple   industry    of    New    Hampshire.      New    Hampshire 

Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  223:1-38. 

40  Powell,  G.  H. 

1903.     The  apple  in  cold  storage.     U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  of  Plant  Industry 
Bui.  48:16-62. 
4i  Price,  H.  C. 

1903.     Cold  storage  of  apples.     Iowa  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  72:39-43. 

42  Ramsey,  H.  J.,  et  al. 

1917.  The  handling  and  storage  of  apples  in  the  Pacific  Northwest.     U.  S. 

Dept.  Agr.  Dept.  Bui.  587:1-32. 

43  Ramsey,  H.  J. 

1918.  Heavy  loading  of  freight  cars  in  the  transportation  of  northwestern 

apples.     U.S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  of  Markets  Doc.  13:1-23. 

44  Rees,  R.  W. 

1926.  Apple  survey  of  the  United  States  and  Canada.  64  p.  Dept.  of 
Agr.  Relations  of  New  York  Central  Lines.  Rochester  Herald 
Press,  Rochester,  N.  Y. 


BUL.  445]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  APPLE  INDUSTRY  75 

45  Eichards,  H.  I.,  and  Jesse  W.  Tapp. 

1927.  The  apple  situation  in  New  England.  Published  by  the  Connecticut 
and  Maine  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  and  Ext.  Service  of  New  Hampshire, 
Ehode  Island,  and  Massachusetts. 

46  Einn,  A.  G. 

1927.     Cold  storage  of  apples.     Calif.  Cultivator  6(12)  :350-351.     March  19. 

47  Eose,  D.  H. 

1924.  Diseases  of  apples  on  the  markets.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Dept.  Bui. 
1253:1-24. 

48  Sandsten,  E.  P.,  and  C.  M.  Tompkins. 

1922.  Orchard  survey  of  the  southwestern  district  of  Colorado.  Colorado 
Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  274:1-21. 


1922.     Orchard  survey  of  the  western  district  of  Colorado.     Colorado  Agr. 
Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  275:1-45. 

so  Scott,  W.  M. 

1919.  Preparation    of    barreled    apples    for    market.      U.  S.    Dept.    Agr. 

Farmers'  Bui.  1080:1-40. 

si  Smith,  Edwin. 

1926.     Foreign  news   on   apples.     U.  S.   Dept.   Agr.   Bureau   of   Agr.   Econ. 
Mimeo.  Eept.,  May  24.     6  p. 

52  

1926.     Foreign   news   on  apples.     U.  S.   Dept.   Agr.   Bureau   of  Agr.   Econ. 
Mimeo.  Eept.,  June  24.     6  p. 

53  Talbert,  T.  J.,  and  F.  S.  Merrill. 

1926.     Picking,  packing,   and   shipping   apples.     Missouri   Agr.   Exp.    Sta. 
Circ.  147:1-44. 

54  Tate,  A.  W.  Jr. 

1918.     History  of  apple  drying  in  Pajaro  Valley.     California  Fruit  News, 
Dec.  28,  1918.    p.  17. 

55  Taylor,  Henry  M.,  and  F.  Earl  Parsons. 

1926.  The  apple  and  peach  industries  of  Virginia.     U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur. 

Agr.  Econ.  and  Virginia  Dept.  Agr.  Survey  Bui.  1:1-85. 
se  Tufts,  W.  P. 

1917.     The  packing   of  apples  in  California.      Calif.   Agr.   Exp.   Sta.   Circ. 
178:1-31. 

5"  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Crop  Estimates. 

1920.  Export  values  of  apples,  1851-1920.     Amer.  PomO.  Soc.  Proc.  36  and 

37:194-195. 
ss  Warren,  G.  F.,  et  al. 

1927.  The   apple   situation   in   New   York   State.      A   preliminary   report. 

44  p.     New  York  State  College  of  Agriculture,  Ithaca,  N.  Y. 
59  West,  C.  J. 

1926.     Ohio  commercial  orchards  and  vineyards.     State  of  Ohio  Dept.  Agr. 
Special  Bui.     April  1. 


76  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION 

soWlCKSON,  E.  J. 

1926.     California  fruits.     502  p.     The  Pacific  Rural  Press,  San  Francisco. 

6i  Yount,  Hubert  W.,  and  Lorian  P.  Jefferson. 

1926.  An  economic  study  of  the  Massachusetts  apple  industry.     Massachu- 

setts Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  228:1-116. 

For  a  more  complete  list  of  references  on  apples,  see  the  following : 

Bercaw,  Louise  O. 

1927.  The  apple  industry  in  the  United  States.     U.  S.  Bur  Agr.   Econ. 

Agricultural  Economics  Bibliography  19:1-170    (mimeo.). 


STATION  PUBLICATIONS  AVAILABLE   FOE  FKEE   DISTRIBUTION 


No. 

253. 

262. 

263. 
268. 
273. 


276. 
277. 
278. 
279. 
283. 
294. 
304. 

310. 
312. 
813. 

319. 
324. 

325. 


328. 
331. 
335. 

339. 

340. 

343. 
344. 

346. 
347. 

348. 
349. 

350. 

353. 
354. 
357. 


358. 

361. 

362. 
363. 

364. 

365. 
366. 

367. 

368. 

369. 

370. 
371. 

373. 
374. 

375. 

376. 

377. 
379. 


BULLETINS 
No. 


Irrigation  and  Soil  Conditions  in  the 
Sierra   Nevada   Foothills,    California. 

Citrus  Diseases  of  Florida  and  Cuba 
Compared   with   those   of   California. 

Size  Grades  for  Ripe  Olives. 

Growing  and  Grafting  Olive  Seedlings. 

Preliminary  Report  on  Kearney  Vine- 
yard Experimental  Drain,  Fresno 
County,    California. 

The   Pomegranate. 

Sudan    Grass. 

Grain    Sorghums. 

Irrigation   of   Rice  in    California. 

The  Olive  Insects  of  California. 

Bean   Culture  in   California. 

A  Study  of  the  Effects  of  Freezes  on 
Citrus    in    California. 

Plum    Pollination. 

Mariout   Barley. 

Pruning      Young      Deciduous      Fruit 


Caprifigs    and    Caprification. 

Storage  of  Perishable  Fruit  at  Freez- 
ing Temperatures. 

Rice  Irrigation  Measurements  and 
Experiments  in  Sacramento  Valley, 
1914-1919. 

Prune   Growing   in   California. 

Phylloxera-Resistant    Stocks. 

Cocoanut  Meal  as  a  Feed  for  Dairy 
Cows   and   Other   Livestock. 

The  Relative  Cost  of  Making  Logs 
from   Small  and  Large  Timber. 

Control  of  the  Pocket  Gopher  in 
California. 

Cheese    Pests    and    Their    Control. 

Cold  Storage  as  an  Aid  to  the  Mar- 
keting of  Plums. 

Almond    Pollination. 

The  Control  of  Red  Spiders  in  Decid- 
uous Orchards. 

Pruning  Young  Olive  Trees. 

A  Study  of  Sidedraft  and  Tractor 
Hitches. 

Agriculture  in  Cut-over  Redwood 
Lands. 

Bovine   Infectious   Abortion. 

Results  of  Rice  Experiments  in   1922. 

A  Self-mixing  Dusting  Machine  for 
Applying  Dry  Insecticides  and 
Fungicides. 

Black  Measles,  Water  Berries,  and 
Related   Vine  Troubles. 

Preliminary  Yield  Tables  for  Second 
Growth   Redwood. 

Dust  and  the  Tractor   Engine. 

The  Pruning  of  Citrus  Trees  in  Cali- 
fornia. 

Fungicidal  Dusts  for  the  Control  of 
Bunt. 

Avocado  Culture  in   California. 

Turkish  Tobacco  Culture,  Curing  and 
Marketing. 

Methods  of  Harvesting  and  Irrigation 
in   Relation  of  Mouldy  Walnuts. 

Bacterial  Decomposition  of  Olives  dur- 
ing  Pickling. 

Comparison  of  Woods  for  Butter 
Boxes. 

Browning  of  Yellow  Newtown  Apples. 

The  Relative  Cost  of  Yarding  Small 
and   Large  Timber. 

Pear   Pollination. 

A  Survey  of  Orchard  Practices  in  the 
Citrus  Industry  of  Southern  Cali- 
fornia. 

Results  of  Rice  Experiments  at  Cor- 
tena,    1923. 

Sun-Drying  and  Dehydration  of  Wal- 
nuts. 

The  Cold   Storage  of   Pears. 

Walnut   Culture   in   California. 


380. 

382. 

385. 
386. 

387. 
388. 

389. 
390. 

391. 

392. 
393. 
394. 

395. 


397. 


398. 
399. 


400. 
401. 

402. 
404. 
405. 
406. 
407. 


408. 
409. 


410. 
411. 
412. 

414. 

415. 
416. 

417. 

418. 

419. 

420. 

421. 
422. 

423. 

424. 

425. 
426. 

427. 

428. 

429. 


Growth  of  Eucalyptus  in  California 
Plantations. 

Pumping  for  Drainage  in  the  San 
Joaquin    Valley,    California. 

Pollination    of    the    Sweet   Cherry. 

Pruning  Bearing  Deciduous  Fruit 
Trees. 

Fig   Smut. 

The  Principles  and  Practice  of  Sun- 
drying  Fruit. 

Berseem  or   Egyptian    Clover. 

Harvesting  and  Packing  Grapes  in 
California. 

Machines  for  Coating  Seed  Wheat  with 
Copper    Carbonate    Dust. 

Fruit    Juice    Concentrates. 

Crop  Sequences  at  Davis. 

Cereal  Hay  Production  in  California. 
Feeding  Trials  with  Cereal  Hay. 

Bark   Diseases  of   Citrus  Trees. 

The  Mat  Bean  (Phaseolus  aconitifo- 
lius). 

Manufacture  of  Roquefort  Type  Cheese 
from   Goat's   Milk. 

Orchard  Heating  in  California. 

The  Blackberry  Mite,  the  Cause  of 
Redberry  Disease  of  the  Himalaya 
Blackberry,    and    its   Control. 

The  Utilization  of  Surplus  Plums. 

Cost  of  Work  Horses  on  California 
Farms. 

The  Codling  Moth  in  Walnuts. 

The  Dehydration  of  Prunes. 

Citrus  Culture  in  Central  California. 

Stationary  Spray  Plants  in  California. 

Yield,  Stand  and  Volume  Tables  for 
White  Fir  in  the  California  Pine 
Region. 

Alternaria  Rot  of  Lemons. 

The  Digestibility  of  Certain  Fruit  By- 
products as  Determined  for  Rumi- 
nants. 

Factors  Affecting  the  Quality  of  Fresh 
Asparagus  after  it  is  Harvested. 

Paradichlorobenzene  as  a  Soil  Fumi- 
gant. 

A  Study  of  the  Relative  Values  of  Cer- 
tain Root  Crops  and  Salmon  Oil  as 
Sources  of  Vitamin  A  for  Poultry. 

Planting  and  Thinning  Distances  for 
Deciduous  Fruit  Trees. 

The  Tractor  on   California  Farms. 

Culture  of  the  Oriental  Persimmon 
in    California. 

Poultry  Feeding:  Principles  and 
Practice. 

A  Study  of  Various  Rations  for 
Finishing  Range  Calves  as  Baby 
Beeves. 

Economic  Aspects  of  the  Cantaloupe 
Industry. 

Rice  and  Rice  By-products  as  Feeds 
for   Fattening   Swine. 

Beef   Cattle   Feeding   Trials,    1921-24. 

Cost  of  Producing  Almonds  in  Cali- 
fornia; a  Progress  Report. 

Apricots  (Series  on  California  Crops 
and  Prices). 

The  Relation  of  Rate  of  Maturity  to 
Egg  Production. 

Apple   Growing   in   California. 

Apple  Pollination  Studies  in  Cali- 
fornia. 

The  Value  of  Orange  Pulp  for  Milk 
Production. 

The  Relation  of  Maturity  of  Cali- 
fornia Plums  to  Shipping  and 
Dessert   Quality. 

Economic  Status  of  the  Grape  Industry. 


CIRCULARS 

No.  No. 

87.  Alfalfa.  259. 

117.  The    Selection    and    Cost   of    a    Small  261. 

Pumping  Plant.  262. 

127.  House    Fumigation.  263. 

129.  The  Control  of  Citrus  Insects.  264. 
136.  Helilotus    indica    as    a    Green-Manure 

Crop  for  California.  265. 

144.  Oidiura    or    Powdery    Mildew    of    the  266. 

Vine. 

157.  Control  of  the  Pear  Scab.  267. 
164.   Small  Fruit  Culture  in  California. 

166.   The   County   Farm  Bureau.  269. 

170.   Fertilizing     California     Soils     for    the  270. 

1918   Crop.  272. 
173.  The    Construction    of   the   Wood-Hoop 

Silo.  273. 

178.  The   Packing  of  Apples  in   California.  276. 

179.  Factors    of    Importance    in    Producing  277. 

Milk  of  Low   Bacterial   Count. 

202.  County    Organizations   for   Rural   Fire  278. 

Control. 

203.  Peat   as   a   Manure   Substitute.  279. 
209.   The  Function  of  the  Farm   Bureau.. 

212.   Salvaging    Rain-Damaged    Prunes.  281. 
215.   Feeding  Dairy  Cows  in  California. 
217.   Methods   for  Marketing  Vegetables   in 

California.  282. 

230.  Testing  Milk,    Cream,    and   Skim   Milk 

for  Butterfat.  283. 

231.  The    Home    Vineyard.  284. 

232.  Harvesting    and    Handling    California  285. 

Cherries    for    Eastern    Shipment.  286. 

234.  Winter  Injury  to  Young  Walnut  Trees  287. 

during  1921-22.  288. 

238.  The  Apricot  in   California.  289. 

239.  Harvesting     and     Handling     Apricots  290. 

and  Plums  for  Eastern  Shipment.  291. 

240.  Harvesting    and    Handling    Pears    for 

Eastern    Shipment.  292. 

241.  Harvesting  and  Handling  Peaches  for  293. 

Eastern    Shipment.  294. 

243.  Marmalade  Juice  and  Jelly  Juice  from  295. 

Citrus  Fruits. 

244.  Central  Wire  Bracing  for  Fruit  Trees.  296. 

245.  Vine   Pruning   Systems. 

248.  Some    Common    Errors   in   Vine  Prun-  298. 

mg  and  Their  Remedies. 

249.  Replacing    Missing    Vines.  300. 

250.  Measurement   of   Irrigation   Water   on  301. 

the  Farm.  302. 

252.  Supports  for  Vines.  303. 

253.  Vineyard  Plans. 

254.  The  Use  of  Artificial  Light  to  Increase  304. 

Winter   Egg    Production.  305. 

255.  Leguminous   Plants  as  Organic  Fertil-  308. 

izer   in    California    Agriculture. 

256.  The   Control   of  Wild    Morning   Glory.  307. 

257.  The  Small-Seeded  Horse  Bean.  308. 

258.  Thinning   Deciduous   Fruits.  309. 


Pear  By-products. 

Sewing  Grain  Sacks. 

Cabbage  Growing  in   California. 

Tomato  Production  in   California. 

Preliminary      Essentials      to      Bovine 

Tuberculosis  Control. 
Plant   Disease  and  Pest  Control. 
Analyzing     the     Citrus     Orchard     by 

Means  of   Simple  Tree   Records. 
The  Tendency  of  Tractors  to   Rise  in 

Front;    Causes  and  Remedies. 
An  Orchard  Brush  Burner. 
A  Farm  Septic  Tank. 
California  Farm  Tenancy  and  Methods 

of  Leasing. 
Saving  the  Gophered  Citrus  Tree. 
Home  Canning. 
Head,   Cane,    and   Cordon   Pruning  of 

Vines. 
Olive  Pickling  in  Mediterranean  Coun- 
tries. 
The  Preparation  and  Refining  of  Olive 

Oil   in   Southern   Europe. 
The  Results  of  a  Survey  to  Determine 

the  Cost  of  Producing  Beef  in  Cali- 
fornia. 
Prevention  of  Insect  Attack  on  Stored 

Grain. 
Fertilizing  Citrus  Trees  in   California. 
The   Almond   in   California. 
Sweet  Potato  Production  in  California. 
Milk  Houses  for  California  Dairies. 
Potato   Production   in    California. 
Phylloxera   Resistant  Vineyards. 
Oak  Fungus  in  Orchard  Trees. 
The  Tangier  Pea. 
Blackhead   and   Other   Causes  of  Loss 

of  Turkeys   in   California. 
Alkali   Soils. 

The    Basis    of   Grape    Standardization. 
Propagation    of   Deciduous   Fruits. 
The   Growing   and   Handling  of   Head 

Lettuce   in    California. 
Control     of     the     California     Ground 

Squirrel. 
The    Possibilities    and    Limitations    of 

Cooperative   Marketing. 
Coccidiosis  of  Chickens. 
Buckeye  Poisoning  of  the  Honey  Bee. 
The   Sugar  Beet   in   California. 
A  Promising  Remedy  for  Black  Measles 

of  the  Vine. 
Drainage  on  the  Farm. 
Liming  the  Soil. 
A  General  Purpose  Soil  Auger  and  its 

Use  on  the  Farm. 
American   Foulbrood  and  its   Control. 
Cantaloupe  Production  in  California. 
Fruit  Tree   and   Orchard  Judging. 


The  publications  listed  above  may  be  had  by  addressing 

College  of  Agriculture, 

University  of  California, 

Berkeley,  California. 
12m-l,'28 


